 Thank you. Hello, everyone. Welcome to the TSC call. So as you know, we all need to live by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is being displayed. If you're online, I think everybody is pretty much so. And we have the code of conduct that I'm sure you remember as well. Browsing through the list of participants only see very well known names. So I'm sure everybody's familiar with all that stuff. But I think we can call it done. So the announcement as the title implies is more of a reminder to main items. We have the newsletter. Everybody please do keep that in mind and take it as an opportunity to, you know, reach out and publicize what's going on in your projects or group. It's an opportunity to socialize their work that we don't take advantage of often enough. And then there's the membership mentorship program that's going on. So you have until March 11 to make a proposal. Is there any other announcements anybody wants to make? Hey, Arnaud, this is Daniela. I just want to remind everyone and we should just and I apologize that we'll put it up in the announcements for next week that the Hyperledger Global Forum CFP is now open and is due to close March 12. So please do submit your talks, have your teams and your colleagues submit. We'd love to see representation across all projects, working groups and special interest groups. Good point. And are you still looking for program committee members as well? It's still open. We have a fantastic list. I think we're over 30 already volunteers. So we're good there. But if anyone is dying to participate in the program committee, you know, to help select content and we'd love to have them. So that's still open. And CFP, as I said, will be open through March 12. Any questions, just let anybody know on staff and we're happy to coach you and help you. Very good. Thank you. So with that done, we have no fewer than three quarterly reports, indeed, actually submitted one, as well as ARIs. You may remember that we had not had a report from the ARIs group or project for quite a while due to an oversight in the calendar. And they had submitted an extensive report just a few weeks ago. I had, I noticed they were on the calendar for report. I didn't expect them to submit one. But Steven went ahead and published one anyway, updating the previous one with highlight, which I quite, you know, I'm quite grateful for. And so, and then we had a new report from EROHA. I didn't see anything that really needed to be brought for discussion to the TSE, but this is your chance to either highlight or ask anything or ask questions if you want. If not, I mean, I'll probably carry those over next week as well, because some of them were just submitted the day or two ago. So I can imagine that everybody has a chance to look at it and look at the status. But yesterday, when I put the agenda together, I noticed there were quite a few names missing from the list of reviewers. So and that's okay. Okay. Hey, I just wanted to point out that there are two open questions in EROHA. Two open questions on what? Yes, thank you. I just commented out quickly, just before start off with my thing, but if answers need to be corrected, then feel free to correct them. So the, the, the, yeah, so the, so the first one, the answer is no, there isn't. And quite frankly, given how little the traffic is on the TSE list, I feel like if anybody wants to see anything about TSE, they should just subscribe to the TSE list. I don't think we have so much traffic that they would be inundated and not be able to pass what's what they want. The due date, we also, we have responded to this in the decision we made. We're still trying to figure out how to properly implement the repollinter part, but I don't have it on the top of my head, but I think it's next quarter, right? So we can point out to the decisions, the record for the minutes. Thanks for bringing that up. Anything else? I also suggest an answer to their first question is if they find the TSE list to a high volume, which I wouldn't think of it as a high volume list compared to many others, then recommending to them that they at least follow the the agendas and and meeting notes of the TSE calls might be might be of suitable length rather than, you know, having somebody reformat that into a newsletter every time, I hope is that the notes can stand alone if somebody can't attend the calls. We have to stay puzzled by the term TSE solutions. I'm not sure what they meant, but I assume it's resolutions. Yeah, I imagine. I will point out that at the top of every meeting, right, we do have this and the TSE members are there's nothing preventing the TSE or a member thereof of putting an announcement here saying this week the TSE to decide on this provides developer centric. So this is a form, you know, two developers and four developers. Very good. Right. You're doing a good job at pounding that one into our brains. Hart, you have a question? What does it have in his hand? Sorry, I was just yeah, I just was reaching for the the unmute button. Yeah, I just asked about the the ARIES active status stuff in chat. I don't think it's it's Brady. That's not my that was my meeting that worked out. Yeah, no, no worries. I was just curious what the the status was because they have a pretty expansive document, I guess. Yeah, so I mean I don't see Steven here. I guess we yeah, you're right. I guess they should. In the report he says they expects to provide it to the TSE for consideration in the next few days. So I'm waiting for that. Okay, I guess we just wait for an email from Sam then? Yes. Or someone. Okay. That's my interpretation of what was in that report. I think we did trigger their interest when we kind of pushed and say hey, you know, I don't know why you're not trying. You should go ahead and apply. And then they took that to heart and they started working on their application. And that's what they are reporting about. But I don't think it's for us to jump on it quite yet. So stay tuned. Anything else? I think it would be useful for when projects that aren't active report, if they're not active, they list like one or two reasons of what they're working on to get too active that they're not currently active. So at least give us a tracker of what what they think they're missing. Yeah, that's an interesting idea. I think some groups might be a bit shy in this regard and wrongfully. They should at least try. And I think trying is a good exercise to try to figure out where you are. You stand, right? And I think that's what the Aries project, where instance, realized, you know, when we nudge them, they said, okay, let's have a look. Maybe we can actually get away with what we have. So yeah, that's a good point. We could suggest people of a, maybe we can, I mean, we could just pass the word around and say, hey, maintainers of projects that are not that are still incubation, we encourage you to make it to have a closer look at what the where you stand in regard to your the graduation to out of incubation. Troy. Yeah, just from the chat channel, I think the request was to consider the document and what else has to be done in the document. That was how I read the chat message in the TSC channel. Oh yeah, I see. I've not seen that one yet. So maybe we can help them there. Brian, who do they go to for the legal checking of the trademark? Legal checking of the trademark. The first time I'm seeing that question, I'll talk with them about that. I'll take that. There's an email, a general email, it's called trademark at hyperledger.org. That would be the best thing. It's monitored by our legal team and staff as well. Okay. And what do we say about the alignment with the hyperledger architecture? Kind of feeling this is outdated. Unfortunately, we had this idea. Initially we had the hyperledger architecture working group. They set up a general framework kind of a reference point for all the projects to be able to specify where they fit in. I don't know if it's still relevant or not. Well, maybe they could talk about their relationship with Indy and Ursa a little bit. Yeah, just I think this positioning with regard to the other projects essentially would be good enough. Let's just tell them that. If anybody else thinks they need to do more, you need to speak up. Okay. So I'll get a response on the trademark stuff ASAP. All right. Thank you. Anything else on this? I think we can just help them there. They're probably trying to close on the remaining topics they have to submit the application. And that's it. That's a good sign. They're probably close to being done. Okay. I don't see any other hands up. So I think we are done with this. And so back to what Dino was saying about the the questions for projects in incubation. Dino, you're saying you would want us to put that explicitly as a question in the template for quarterly report? Yeah, because that way we could see put it in their mind that they should be moving off of incubation so they don't get too comfortable there. Put it in their mind that they can and should. So I might just forget. But I think most importantly to get them to reflect on what their what their current shortcoming is and try and focus on that. And if they don't, if they look through and do the inventory and realize well we think we have these well now that's a good indication and it's time to ask. Yeah, the only hesitation I have in making it in such a you know formal ways that basically you're asking them to to answer all the questions that you know how they meet all the executoria and which one they fail. We would form the question is you know what what area ask them to list one of them that they're working on that they don't think they currently meet might be one way to we need to get some formulation to say what's what are you working on to get to the incubation to get out of incubation what area are you currently working on you need to get some good formulation on that probably won't be ready for for wording today on that. Yeah, so how about if you can think of a proposal to make is submitted to the TSE could do that on the mailing list say hey how about we add that kind of question and then we can put that on the agenda and okay yeah thank you all right let's move on then we have quite a few discussion items quite frankly it's okay if we don't finish there's more that could have been put on the agenda and I just you know picked a few that I thought was worth discussing today and we'll go as far as we can in the list. So the first one I wanted to follow up on the standards work so now we actually add two I mean the question of how to do standards within Hyperledger kind of came in two different ways the Aries project brought it up when they made their report and you know we had fairly quick discussions about the fact that Hyperledger is not set up for standards work but maybe there would be a way to do that and I expressed you know the opinion that we should definitely try to figure out a way to allow this work to happen because Aries is already doing it and apparently some CIG working groups are also working in the standards space and so I brought it up to Brian who had not been on the call when we discussed this and he came up with an answer saying well actually there's a mechanism we could use he sent an email which Rai is now displaying if you're on the if you're on the zoom client and so essentially the answer is yes there's a way but we will need to get approval to do that and define kind of the scope and at the end of the day what we need is a is a volunteer to push this issue forward Brian do you want to say more nope that captured it well I think your email was good I have to thank you it was the right amount I know I complain to you about writing too long email this one was great thank you so I'm of you know I'm opening it up to the rest of the TSC now I mean how do people feel about this with anybody from the Aries project on I don't see anybody I'll be talking later today with Stephen Curran so happy to pass along okay anything we say here in that in that call but or any questions we have but you know I see this pattern for potentially other projects too yeah I think that's an important question is you know what is the scope and so maybe you can so I think we want to be a bit careful not to make it too broad a scope but does this mean if we were to say yes the Aries project for instance can do that and then we decide to do it somewhere else we would have to go through the same process again I think that'd be the the safest thing to do from a risk limiting point of view and from bringing people on board to to that specifications process that it's not just all things blockchain or all things identity you know so one one for Aries RSC is one for you know intra ledger rfcs if we wanted to do something around just like cactus you know as setting out some sort of specification proto standard I still think the best thing is to to bump these things upstairs so to speak to other proper formal standard bodies if they are things we really really want lots of others to adopt but and certainly this preps it for that kind of move practically speaking is it kind of like a charter we have to put together yeah I mean there's a template that we'd be able to use to it basically is a becomes a sub charter of of the hyper ledger charter so this is something that the governing board would also need to approve and if folks here are enthusiastic and there are people interested in helping manifest this then I can mention this and seek governing board approval for going in this direction at our meeting on Tuesday if we'd like so we can we can move on this reasonably fast and the community specification github repo that is linked there sets out a template for how this works basically you fork that repo and then follow its recommendations and you I know that you know I talked about please pre standards work which made a few people smile last time because the term standards is pre loaded and you know sensitive to some people or organizations I don't know that we want to say we are going to work on standards per se but I would you know this talks about specification which is exactly what I would have suggested to use as the term just so that everybody is on the same page essentially the same the difference is really in the in the level of official endorsement by some you know establish established standards organization or not so it's fairly common nowadays to have groups develop specifications that eventually can be submitted to a formal process at which point they can become standards per se and even in the standard space there are different levels and you know between day jury organization or not so but so I'd like to get a bit more feedback from the TSC is that worth you know pursuing last time when I brought it up you know you know when the Aries project brought it up and I suggested we should look into doing this people were fairly you know I had a good sense that people were supportive of doing this so I was pleased to hear from Brian that we had pretty much a ready to made solution at our disposal we just need to act on it and so what I'd like to hear is if the TSC is happy pursuing this further Arun not a suggestion but I have a few questions around it so I mean if if hyperledger had to do it then there were many other opportunities in past right where hyperledger could have done that so I wanted to understand what were the reasonings that or is there any thoughts which where hyperledger had to stay back step aside on going with going through this route or would there be any consequences of this and with others I'll speak personally at least why why I kind of steered us in that direction which was I had a I have had a notion that it's better to have standards done at organizations that are are orthogonal and it probably was my my experiences with the IETF and Apache that you know this was it was really great to have the IETF as a place to bring together multiple different implementers to talk about the way this you know things should be and then at Apache to bring together the builders to build the things the way that work and have this kind of feedback loop between the two but able to push back in either direction if the spec is wrong you talk over here if the implementation is wrong you talk over there and I kind of think projects that say the code is the spec or that have too tight a tie between them don't do justice to that orthogonality it was also a way to be able to say you know we'd rather work with organizations out there that see themselves as standards orgs whether w3c or you know Ethereum Enterprise Alliance or others and push things to them on the hopes that they would return the favor and if they're building code push things to us right and so I think that might still be an answer to specifically the question from Aries as heart mentioned was it heart or Troy sorry thanks the did com messaging work is happening in in diff and diff is set up as a as part of this JDF thing so so is the open standard structure inside the LF it could be that an appropriate response this is something I'll talk about with Steven is that more of the area spec work happens over there it probably happens under different brand just to help keep things clear you know that Aries is about the implementation and you know some other name is about the specifications but you know so I just want to make sure we've thoroughly explored this option and and even if Aries happens there you know prepping this for the next calls out to graduate you know a project level spec into something more general purpose it'd be nice to have yeah so I you know obviously a senior background as yours so I have the same traditional view on the separation between specs and open source projects at the same time you have to recognize that the boundary is getting more and more blurry by the day because you have organizations like Oasis started doing open source even though there was a standards organization yeah the Eclipse is doing the other way around they they were open source but now they do some standards work so I you know that alone at this point I wouldn't you know I wouldn't stop me I would say yeah we can do both it doesn't matter Nathan uh I think um the ability to to do so especially some proto standards work is very helpful um what we found when we started the Aries project was that most of the standards bodies weren't ready for the kind of work that we had unless we could give them concrete examples um and uh the concrete examples they didn't understand them in the form just strictly a code base we had to have something that looked more like a specification that had some interoperability considerations and if we only had something that was referencing just the technical spec of our single singular code base it didn't really do enough to get the the effort off the ground and so having some of this infrastructure in place for proto standards I think even if it's just that it helps a lot but at the same time I want to emphasize what both Brian and Arnold have have talked about moving those into a more appropriate standards body when they're ready is also something that's helped us get things in front of more more eyeballs um and help build compatibility with other projects outside of hyper ledgers so um it's kind of something we have to take on a case by case basis but having these tools in our tool belt for when we need them is really important um you know the early process of trying to figure out where to incubate the standards that are being built with Aries was really rather difficult in part because the diff has um a bunch of code bases that they host and they have some overlap with hyper ledgers mission so figuring that out took quite a bit of time um and uh everyone was really cooperative and collaborative in that process and I think it's worked out pretty well um but having some of these tools available to us would have helped us through that process so I'm hoping we can uh get approvals so that we have some of these things ready for when something like this happens again all right thank you anybody else yeah I was just going to say what Nathan said I think the the issue is having a place for these pre standards pro standards whatever you call them um and also the potential difficulty when you're moving between two different communities um when you're dealing with these pre standards so it's a bit of an echo of what Nathan was saying when we're talking about different communities they have different leadership and different um goals um so it can be a little more difficult to start that kind of project somewhere else especially when we're talking about these pre standards kind of activities all right thank you anyone else okay if not I think we can do it at this oh Arun you're back on please sorry um so yeah I mean a few more questions arise right with this for example if hyper ledger hosts the specification or if hyper ledger moves towards standardizing then a standard will be effective if we have multiple implementers interested in doing getting it through right um so who are those other parties who are going to use and or is it just going to be within hyper ledger that we have different implementations available apart from those the other questions which also arise which at least I could not understand so far is what will be the format like how do we get it through reviews how do we um what would be the structure all those questions to arise I for me it is still lacking so many questions so I I'm not able to comment on it I mean the structure I think the idea is well we use the same tools I mean there is they effectively have been doing that already right and they have multiple implementations within areas itself and there are people outside hyper ledger implementing the specs so I this is but you know I agree with you that it's key for standards at least to be successful to have multiple implementations and there are standards organization like the R3C they have they do require at least two independent implementations for the respect to become a standard that's why I also don't want us to call it a standard we have to be careful what we call it but I think if we call that a project spec or some community spec like it was discussed before we can you know get away with that with that much you know as long as we don't pretend it's more than it is so in terms of the structure I mean the important aspect is the legal aspect and you know which is addressed in Brian's email you need different type of licensing commitment from people who participate in contributing to a spec than you do for open source that's just the way it is that's what the framework is meant to address okay but so I haven't heard anybody saying don't do that I understand people like her and you know rightfully you may have more questions but I think it's worth pursuing and so Brian you know do bring it up to Steven when you talk to him and let's see if you know they are a volunteer I think it's the kind of thing if there's one project that goes through the process they'll kind of you know figure the way and then we become easier next time around for us to work through it okay and if Aries decides to pursue this path I'll be coming back here and just looking for a volunteer or two to help work with with us you know and myself and and ryan and others on the staff side to to implement this in a way that's that's fair and and transparent and and solid all right thank you all right moving on lab sponsor I had to bring that one up so first it kind of you know came into in part into the the the feedback we received from Tracy and our discussion with the CIGS and you know which had to do with the friction that some people have experienced working with the labs and it seems like one particular point of friction is the the the current requirement of finding a sponsor when there are actually quite a few people who are qualified to become a sponsor among those few seem to be interested we talked about the challenge people have I mean we have seen I mean I'm a lab steward and others are too and you know I can see there people come up with a proposal they don't have a sponsor and we say you need to find a sponsor and they're like okay where do I find and we some proposal gets stuck there just because they can't find a sponsor and I have I'll admit I have volunteered myself many times just to out of pity because I'm like it seems worth wide project I'll just yeah put my name and let's move on because I want to give them a shot and and and we've talked about this before and we said okay let's create a list of people who are volunteer to become sponsors and that went nowhere nobody pretty much volunteered so we don't really have a list to share with those people so we haven't solved the problem at all and yet as I said you know in my email when I look at what it takes to be a sponsor today is very little it's basically you look at the proposal and you say I mean there are two ways right there are cases where I work with people they come to me they say hey I'm working on this I could we bring into hyperledger and I say oh you can use a lab you know to do this it's a good first step and then I said well you can you know I've discussed the project and I'm like yeah you can even put my name as a sponsor and that's good or they come and they don't know right and then we have to tell them well try to find a sponsor and I've been trying to not volunteer myself all the time but so that's the situation we're in and and essentially you just have to look at it and say yeah that's within scope of the hyperledger and you know the project seems well defined enough and good to go put my name on it and the lab stewards do a very similar job as a steward even if my name is not on there and either other people here you know Tracy Troy right we all contribute to this we all look at those proposals and leap in as well and we're like can you please clarify the description what do you mean by this and there's some dialogue going on and we help them shape up their proposals so there's you know it works and then we say yeah okay looks good enough and we approve it and I'm like the role of the sponsor versus the role of steward as far as I'm concerned I'm being both at times makes no difference so I'm like let's just get rid of this sponsor which you know we can fall into this mode where basically I volunteer every time and and I would do no more than what I do as a steward anyway but then what's the point so I know now in the email discussion Brian you know set up a whole bunch of expectations from the sponsor which we have not agreed to which I'm not saying are not reasonable but this is not the case today and we talked about this before we agreed not to expand on the role at the time so that's where we are I spoken enough I'll I'll let you guys pick up I'll just toss in that I think there is some misunderstanding that what was expected to be the bare minimum that sponsors would do somehow turned into the expectation of the ceiling that that's all that they would do so that that was the that was a semantic change I missed in the in the in the previous conversations because it was always about helping scale out the labs so we could accept more projects without creating us a a stressy burden for the stewards I'm on my phone to operate my hand if anybody else raised their hand but please gary all right so bubby's first and then we'll go to gary sure yeah thank you for the time I just recently experienced the lab process as volunteering to be a lab stored and if you see the next point in our agenda item I didn't have or Ravi and I didn't have the guidance we needed to know what license to use so we just used MIT there was no real he'd picked it I didn't even notice it until it was brought up for the TSE call so I'm just suggesting that the lab sponsors it's a great way to to get the the projects going and I would propose that the learning materials working group can you be used for people who have ideas if we want to promote that that they can bring them to us and we'll help them with the sponsor process to get into the labs like we did with Ravi all right thank you gary so you know or no you brought up a couple interesting sort of points right and maybe like again I kind of think I have to go back in history right so if if we go with the assumption that you know fundamentally people have something interesting that things kind of related to hyper to the mission of hyper ledger or whatever you want to call it under hyper ledger umbrella they want to do an open source project like maybe we don't need maybe the time to go acquire like sponsors if you will right or people want to help is like if they want to bring it forward past the labs project I mean like you said if there's basic minimum set of criteria and people just want to have a a community and a repository and a set that's doing that I mean we've really more expanded from where we were before right this is a lot different than it's a lot different than how hyper ledger started I said that every probably on every call that I talk so I kind of agree with you I mean maybe part of this is there's things that you might do you know as a lab if you want to move forward right past being a lab or come out of that which we already have but maybe just to come in if you were thinking of it more as as long as it meets a you know basic set of criteria I mean to come over and just get started maybe maybe that maybe there isn't any more than you know you checking on it or whatever a few people checking on it so I kind of tend to agree with what you were saying thank you hot hey yeah this is a good discussion to have and I think that one of the important roles of the sponsors is not necessarily due diligence on the project but just sort of community involvement so I've seen well there are two kinds of lab projects really there are lab projects by people that have done something else in hyper ledger so they know all the rules they know what to do you know and this is really the simple case where you know where you know do these people really need to go through the sponsorship process the other case is where people who are totally you know outside hyper ledger you know come in and want to contribute something and want to start a lab and in this case right you you get people that sort of don't know how things work you know in hyper ledger we have a lot of unwritten rules and a lot of sort of procedures that you know if you aren't familiar with the organization and you haven't been here for a while you might not immediately pick up on and it might slow you down a lot so in this case you know it's it's can be really nice for labs to have a sponsor because it's just sort of someone who can help them sort of interact with the community meet the rest of the community you know know who they need to talk to if there's an issue or if there's you know some request for communication or just something like that so sort of the sponsor is a community involvement person rather than you know someone who's doing like due diligence on the project I think that's a really important thing and I know I mean I'm sure Brian can tell you more about this and I'm sure I'm going to just completely butcher it but Apache it seems like in their project life cycle has some sort of like community champion role I think it is whose whose job it is is to do stuff like that and that seems to be a particularly impactful thing all right thank you all so I mean practically speaking we have different options available we can revise the definition of the role of sponsor we can keep it as is we can get rid of sponsor I think the question you know there are a couple of points that I don't think alone justify keeping a sponsor so it seems pretty clear that we're missing some documentation about what's expected of labs such as you know you must use the Apache software license you know it's a failure somewhere in documentation that we have this expectation but as the labs that's not being communicated to people create labs so that's an easy thing to fix and it shouldn't require having a sponsor to do that then there is the helping people get up to speed I mean I can't speak for the other stewards but you know being a lab steward I'm happy to help and we have a lab RC channel people can ask questions and you know I'm happy to to make it more explicit and you know in the lab documentation that you know if people have questions about how to get going about the community or whatever they are welcome to contact the lab stewards I don't need to be labeled as a sponsor to to do that I would do it as a lab steward just not just as well so Nathan so one of the roles of the sponsor was to try to help build cross project collaboration and help us try to spread that culture of kind of working together as a broader hyperledger community it sounds to me from what you're saying I know that the the lab coordinators are really playing that role already is there something more that we need to do in order to fulfill that purpose of a sponsor or do we feel like that or do the maintainers of the labs projects in general feel like that's the responsibility that they're willing to take off so that's a very good point to bring up it's true that we have this hope that the sponsor would role would play that role I don't know that they necessarily do I think again there are labs come in different ways there are cases where you know they have been in contact with somebody like there's a one that just you know I know that came up in the fabric land and my colleague Dave you know volunteered to be the sponsor because we have this call and they say yeah we're going to submit this lab and they said fine I can be your sponsor there was a connection already happening so from the get go that connection is happening it exists I think there are cases where we have people from and maybe that relates to what hot was saying you know there are people who come from the outside world or they're not so well connected and they just bring up their stuff and say hey can I create a lab and they are the ones who are in the struggle finding a sponsor I think indeed if there is a connection I know that you know when as a steward again when I review proposals if I see something that relates to an existing project I will I will bring it up and say I have you looked at this are you in contact with this project you know and I would do expect that to you know I other stewards do the same so yeah I again I don't know that having explicitly a sponsor helps in this regard and and again the the lack of volunteers overall in being sponsored you know I think he's quite telling so hot Nathan you can lower your head okay can I raise my again or no yeah you're like yeah you can yeah so so I think you have done a good job of refining what we've been saying so far you know what if we say something like we get rid of sponsors in general but if a labs project comes in that does not have any existing hl contributors on the team we ask that they find a mentor or something like that and we have you know maybe the the lab stewards or someone can help them find a mentor does that seem like a reasonable compromise here no you're not solving the problem at all because in the case where they have somebody it's easy to put to find a sponsor they already have one we are trying to address the case where they don't have one right yeah I guess you're right Gary so the real question or I think if I'm if I'm listening correctly isn't one of the to what problem are we actually trying to solve here seems to the problem we're trying to solve here is that there's a gate that's gated by lack of participation of sponsors to projects becoming labs and we had criteria for labs or whatever and I guess I just go back to the original point that I was making before maybe that criteria has changed like maybe I mean maybe there has to be some basic stuff right that is related or whatever right I mean isn't that really the problem there's more problems of course of them expanding and getting what they want out of it and all that blah blah blah but you can leave that up to them right like you said we have the help channel we have the whatever so if there's some basic criteria that it should be I don't know blockchain identity or whatever something related to whatever we want to say our mission is fundamentally we're not enforcing that people have to work across stuff that's an idealistic view but it's not really what we're doing so do we even need any of these gates other than frankly being you're willing to license your stuff under a patchy and it should be related to one of our domains like you know something related to the you know blockchain domain that's exactly my point I I think this is an actual gate we have created that doesn't really serve any purpose and of course I'm biased you can hear me I keep I feel like I'm you know clearly pushing in one direction I honestly want to be the one you know enforcing this but I have to do to say that and I felt that way from the beginning and and you know here we are so Arun you're the gatekeeper so it's it's not related to what Gary brought up but going back to earlier discussion just before Gary if if the question is about finding somebody then we have means to means to let people know hey there are people who can review your proposal or it would be just a PR mechanism of getting that reviewed right I'm sorry say that again I missed it oh so um if the question is about finding somebody who as a sponsor then there are ways to let people know hey there are people who are willing to be your sponsors all you do is just reach them out that's that's what we've been trying for several years and it clearly doesn't work well right maybe they are not pointed out on on this proposal speech whereas if let's say we put a mailing list that's indeed the case they are not and we said let's build a list we can point to and nobody volunteered to be on that list so on the one end we are requiring people to find a sponsor and earlier there we have a problem because people don't want to be sponsors for whatever reason they don't have time they don't care and so we basically are creating a wall either you part of the community already you know people who are going to volunteer to be a sponsor or you out of luck I don't recreate a mailing list and let people send to that mailing list and if somebody is interested they they will get a response because the same people because this is hard because the same people you can put people on a mailing list but you still have to respond to it right I guess exactly this is not the problem is not to communicate with them this if they ignore the mailing list or they don't volunteer to be on the list you have the exact same problem so I honestly I appreciate the effort but I don't think this goes to the core of the issue which is we don't have enough people interested in volunteering to be sponsored and maybe it has to do with the fact that there's a misunderstanding of what's involved and people say well I can't take on another project and be the sponsor and be there holding their hand and all that I agree to your this point because when it comes to hyperledger projects which which have been moved from labs out to the main repository under hyperledger the meaning of sponsorship slightly changes to saying that hey it's my organization which is going to support this project or it's that I'm committing to resources on contributing to projects but on lab side it is a little different yes indeed and I do want to point out that it's not a zero labs aren't a zero cost item I know that the question is always it's frequently like what is the real cost like the real cost is providing get and github support for people who are new to the github lifestyle you know and a lot of hand holding around like very white glove treatment for for projects that are enthusiastic but are not quite sure on a technical level what they're doing so there is you know just opening the floodgates and saying submit a PR it gets auto merged bring over your code base and go at it let's I would say please don't do that but you're the TSC so no but but right again I mean you see first hand what happens at the lab I mean at the same time do you think just because we remove the sponsor question from the template all of a sudden we're going to have an avalanche of of proposals that's just not the case we're just going to you know let a couple more projects that have been our proposals that are got stuck in without a sponsor and that's it I think we honestly I think this whole sponsor thing came about from the beginning because of that fear that we were going to get flooded with crap and and project we couldn't handle and I believe this is completely misled well yeah and I think I think also our know we also thought we were going to have a you might have been wanting to be stricter on what we let in right you know all things trying to go back to when we weren't I know there was a much narrower focus the thing is broadened a lot more yeah that's so if we're going with that broad spectrum right and then there's a way to move yourself to an official project right which is the main thing then yeah I get rise point on sort of some of the infrastructure or whatever right but uh so but we can't be the ones who teach everybody how to do everything in open sourced like there's called to the thing called I bet you know some of you may have heard of it's called the internet and it it's pretty helpful I've heard I mean I'll go and create it but it's pretty useful so I have a I have a concrete proposal I mean we could say look let's remove sponsor and check check back in say three months or six months and see what happens as that has that created a problem where now we have an avalanche of proposals and and that you know we can't handle and if that's the case maybe we put it back we say okay that was a mistake but oh no we can blame me but you know let's give it a shot I don't think this is a real problem and I'm willing to take the chance so I think I'm going to leave it at this I'm going to make a formal proposal with a couple of actions which I think we need to take to address the documentation and the health issue and stuff and and I'll put it forward to the TSE for discussion and maybe approval next week before we close we're out of time but it sounded like the next item is the non-issue can we change that license in the HL Starter Kit from an MIT license to an Apache software license Bobby yes consider it done okay and and as I said you know I think we need to document that so that and maybe there are other things we should document and point to when people submit to the lab proposal so they have a better understanding of the expectation I think it's you know I put a space in the chat room for the work to be collected all right thank you okay so I'm going to leave it at this the last one I mean the or the next one was the good first issue I realized after the call we talked and didn't really take an action to you know agreed on what to do next but we'll talk again about this next time that's why it's back on the agenda I wanted to say okay what do we do now so with that being said I'm going to close the call although we have two minutes to spare but does anybody else want to add anything to any of this or can we close the call I have something completely random I spent some time last week scrubbing over documentation of all the maintainers for all the projects and I invited everyone that I could find to the maintainers email list and I noticed that a bunch of projects have invalid maintainers in their maintainers files they don't the emails bounce or otherwise are invalid so I just ask if you are a project maintainer take a look at your maintainers files and make sure that they actually reflect the state of your maintainership thank you that's for current or people who are listed as current maintainers right because we also have sections of former maintainers that you could expect that mailing the email to become invalid when people are changed affiliation or whatnot I was very careful or no I appreciate your concern it's a reasonable no no but I just confirm I expected no nothing less from you right okay yeah that's all I got no that's all good thank you so this is an interesting tidbit so please scrub your maintainers list oh fine that should be all right with that being said I'm going to close the call thank you all for joining I think we had a good discussion and we're making progress thank you