 All right, everybody, welcome to the September 1st hyperledger technical steering committee call. As you are all aware, two things that we must abide by the first one here is the antitrust policy notice. And then the second is the code of conduct which is linked in our agenda. So if we could go to the agenda. We will see we have the standard announcement that Dev Weekly developer newsletter goes out each Friday to hundreds of hyperledger developers. If you have something that you want to reach those developers, please leave a comment on the wiki page that is also linked in the agenda. As a reminder, we canceled this September 15th. We will be meeting due to conflicts with travel from the hypothetical forum. So we will be skipping that one that we do have plans for next week for presentation at a minimum and at least task force discussion so we will definitely be meeting next week. Any other announcements that anybody would like to make. I have a question but I don't know if it's best to ask and now or later. What's your question. Essentially, since I've been so recently, I want to understand how to make contact with me more easy and what I should do for the hyperledger site. I am. I am just not sure how to interact the best. That's my question. So interact specifically with the hyperledger foundation or with the technical students. We said foundation and who should I ask about that. Okay. So we do have some staff members on the call today. Daniela is on the call right. Sean and heart. I think I saw also on the call. So these are the folks that would look like maybe Benjamin's also on the call, also be able to help you depending on what it is that you're looking for. Great. So I hope it's going to be normal. We'll talk about details a bit later. Yes, definitely. Great. Thank you. Any other announcements that anybody has. If there's no other announcements then we do have that the quarterly reports. I did see the Roja one did get the TC members as reviewers sometime. I was asleep. So we do have that one to review as well. I know that there wasn't a whole lot of folks who had a chance to review that since that get at it. We also have the bevel grid and transact reports that came in as well. I didn't see any specific questions. Other than I think I had one on the transact one, which I'm hoping we will get answered. Any questions that we should follow up with these reports on? I'm sure I think this is in regards to one of the task force proposal as well, which I saw in the previous meetings agenda, but I don't see it for some reason. And also related to bevel right so is somebody from bevel participating if it's. Who to reach out for the task force proposal itself? I think there's a few things that were unclear. Yeah, for sure. So there's a there is a task force forming around tools that are focused on deployment of hyper ledger fabric. And I think that we had it on there and then it got pulled back because they weren't quite ready. I think we jumped the gun a bit on getting that on the agenda. So I think they're looking to have some discussions during the global forum, right to really firm up the plans for that and then bring that back to the TSE after the global forum, as far as a proposal goes. And now, the, the link that we had in last week's agenda is, let me see if I can find that quickly here, because the person who created that is probably the person that you should reach out to you. As far as the, you know, who do you who do you talk to to get more involved in that particular task force. My name is Josh new bowl. And you can find his email address on the link for that task force I'll put the task force link again in the TSE jet, so that you can get that name and the email address if you're interested in participating in that particular task force. Thanks. I think meeting that global forum should be all swell. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Other questions on the report Dano. So this is more of a meta question about timing for reports that aren't on yet. And Rai Jones started a thread in discord. So versus due on the week we're canceling the meeting and there is an open gap on 10 six. Should we shuffle some of these due dates around so that they can be due during a meeting we intend to hold. I usually don't do that. Because these are the due dates. We don't do the presentations anymore. I see the teams would be Ursa, Bayes, and Caliper. Looking at the calendar. I could either move those. I mean, we could move the 10 six that puts them in court for how it doesn't matter. It's mostly versus more of my concern we can triple up on a week if we need to. I think, I think like, or I said it's probably okay, because we wouldn't expect to get that until the 15th anyway. And if it happens to be a week late, then it's a week late, right, as far as it coming in so I think it's probably okay to leave it I did include them all here. And that's due today. shallow I did see is getting work done and then firefly and Ursa included on the upcoming reports just to note that we did have the one that's coming due the week of global form so but I do think that we can just leave it and, you know, be understanding if for some reason Ursa happens to be late because of global form. Okay, that sounds fine as long as it's a known, known issue known not to be an issue so. We're generally, I say we the royal we the body, the TSC is generally fairly lax on getting the reports as long as they come in. So, in general, it's not alarms don't go off until you like miss a quarter. Yeah, sure. Any other questions on the quarterly reports. So it wasn't checked by some yet. I'm sorry I haven't notified others. So, I hope that helps. Yeah, definitely thank you vector I did see that come through. And so I would expect the TSC to be reviewing those. That report along with the others as as and when they can. So appreciate you adding that. So if I didn't that is it late. Oh, no worries, no worries. Okay. Any other questions and on the reports before we move on to the discussion items. Okay. So we do have two discussion items today, one that Daniel brought up and then just the update on the project health task force. Any other discussion items that anybody would like to add to the agenda is I don't think this is probably going to take the remaining time that we have left. Okay. Not seeing anything if something does come up please don't hesitate to bring it up before close the call today but Dano did you want to take us through the discussion on the hyper ledger basic get have concerns. Yeah, so this week we have one of our regular basic calls, and I don't know how many people follow what goes on in the theorem ecosystem. But there is there's no ask specific ask today, but we just want to know what's possible of things to change. But there's no, no need to ask immediately. This topic came up when we were discussing moving from circle CI to GitHub actions for our for CI and we're hosted on guest hub. And one of the main tenors said, do we really want to be entrenching ourselves even further in GitHub, and to give context to that. First, I need to step back and give a context in the context. There was a mixer on the theory main network called tornado cash and these mixers are where you would what what they're presented as providing is privacy of transactions you put money in, and you can't see who gets the money. Typical privacy stuff you might find in layer one base implementation or in a fabric implementation so that outside people don't know what's going on. But the problem is, is this privacy feature, according to the OFAC the Office of Foreign Asset Control was used to evade sanctions from North Korea. So as a consequence on a theory of main net that the dress was was banned by put on the OFAC this and several accounts that interacted with it. And what GitHub did. So that's the first context of what happened. GitHub went ahead and removed that project from GitHub. And, you know, as they should appropriate with with no fact regular regulatory ban. It's it's public it's known it's their duty and obligation on the law to do that. They also banned one of the developers. This is the developer who was arrested by Dutch authorities. And again that is public that is known. It's understandable why they did that. So that's not where the concern arises from. There are a few other developers who have periphery involvement they may have submitted a patch or two, or they may have worked on tooling around it. And they had no no public government sanction against them. They went ahead and banned their accounts and provided no explanation for it. And I don't think anybody on base or any of the maintainers are involved in this type of a project. But the concern coming up and also in the awkward devs, the group, the phone call group that establishes the standards for Ethereum main net. Two weeks ago, the meeting was focused on this and became a censorship concern of what happens if some of the validators refuse to propagate. What impact sanctions address and what happens if some don't want impacts that have on the network, which has some follow on effects for rather than just affect transactions about layer two verification transactions that those two could be similarly censored. And it presents questions about health of the network. So with that basis, the concern from the basic team is, is what happens if get starts overreaching and who they decide by later terms of service, without appealing without discussion. And, you know, do we, what options would they have, if the base and maintainers and the rest of the Ethereum community decide that nothing should be hosted on GitHub it should be hosted elsewhere. So there's no ask, but the question is, do projects have to be hosted on GitHub and if they can be hosted elsewhere. What sort of startup would need to be done to make sure that we could host those I know we used to do Garrett self hosted get repositories via Garrett. Would like get lab would think there's another, you know, bit bucket a series of other get resources. Is that something that the TSE would support if if the base maintainers decided to pull everything off of GitHub. And we're not doing it today. That's not the discussion, but we need to know what our what our boundaries are. So we'll provide a little bit of context from a staff perspective. As you said we used to use Garrett and Jenkins. And those went away for reasons. We are not we hyper ledger likes foundation are not married to get up, and it's much easier for us. The TSE community is using their local GitHub alike for the effort that they're doing. We do support get lab. I'm not sure who has the best tooling in terms of who's best integrated with our stuff. But from a perspective that should be a secondary consideration. So I know get lab is on the list of things that we have the tooling to support. I know Garrett is the money for when we shut down Garrett and Jenkins that money was used for other stuff around CI like the circle CI money came in a large part originally from shutting down. So that's that's enough for me. Okay, and there would be an alternative CI because I know we want to get off the circle CI and on to get have actions as a cost dating measure but if necessary. And we have to move off of GitHub quickly we couldn't have actions, but there would be some other alternative CI capability that would be made available. Get lab has a very similar thing to get have actions. Okay, that's so it. Yeah, it's not exactly point for point the same but it's very similar. And transition should be not trivial but doable. Okay. I think we're not asking to move today but I think the maintainer just want to know what the banner reason options are if if things if nothing more changes. I don't think it will change but if if things deteriorate with a number of people that get hub is banning. There might be a motion to move. So, thanks. Yeah, I think, you know, just to add to this right I think they're. There is a benefit for all of the projects to be on the same platform. It's easier to run scripts and tools to find out, you know, things about what's going on in the community, and those sorts of things so I do think it would probably be an interesting discussion about what do we want to do at that point, right, of, you know, is it, okay to have to, right, like for those who don't want to change versus those who do and you know that I think there is going to be some interesting sorts of discussions that would come from this sort of request. Jim, I saw you came off here. No specific comments just switching devices. Okay, no worries, no worries. To further explain Tracy's explanation, it used to be a requirement for all Linux Foundation projects that you used Garrett and Linux Foundation hosted it. Hyperledger was the first project that didn't do that we were split for the first several years where the fabric family of things were on Garrett and everything else is on GitHub, and it was terrible. And now we're at the point where everything's on GitHub, and I'm not going to say it's great, but it's all all the problems are in one place. So we've done this before and it wasn't great. Yeah, I just, you know, I know that part of that too was, you know, stopping potentially people from contributing to other projects because it was on a different, you know, platform than what they were used to, or what they like to use so there were some challenges and I think we would, you know, want to explore what those challenges might be. You know, if and when this becomes a question to the TSE. Okay. Hey, just to understand more from nano regarding the concerns. So, because I mean this is not specific to GitHub right this concern would still be there's no matter where we switch to. But the concern specifically is actually with GitHub, because they're getting aggressive and who they're banning for their terms of service, ones that aren't required by government action, and they're not explaining or justifying what they're doing. That's more the censorship concern is that it's being done opaque. I don't think that basu is a project and as the maintainers would lead the charge off of it. But it's something they're concerned about that there might be a groundswell. If it happens again, and all the other theory and project start de camping from from GitHub, they don't want to be stuck there, and be the only one if everyone's collectively made the decision that GitHub is not acceptable. So it's mostly making sure that, you know, they will be left behind if another large event happens. So that there's one Ethereum client called a cooler they depend on a particular database, and that database has been banned but that's because the database is funded by one of the sanctioned Russian banks. So there are you know we start splitting up, you know so they had to move some of their code hosting to the Russian equivalent of GitHub. So it is affecting some corners of the community but I don't think it's become a groundswell to move in that motion, but you know, judging the ocean, it could on short notice, but I don't see it right now, but I do know that there is the risk if, if, if things deteriorate, and as far as who get Thanks. I misread that to be a sanction action from the government entity my right so I'm, I'm all for honoring government sanctions I mean that's the point of enterprises you work with governments. It's the action without station without explanation that is the concerning part. Jim. Yeah, I'm not expressing any preferences, but but in terms of not being a great experience with a different different repository vendor from the project health angle. Now that we have get up greatly invading to this foundation inside that form that gives us the, you know, the beautiful dashboards to look at the activities. That's going to be lost. If you go somewhere else. I don't think the latest foundation inside team has the bandwidth to accommodate you know an arbitrary vendor besides get up in the short term. Okay, so I'll communicate back that it's possible but it's a big ask so make sure it's really worth it. I think that makes sense, you know, you know the same way as they be worried about being left behind right if the damn community goes to another platform. It's, you know, there are similar sorts of concerns right about the split kind of nature. When it comes to hyper ledger and collaboration and tooling and all of those sorts of things so, you know, I think your direction sounds like a good direction. Oh, sorry, I should have. Out of curiosity is there anything in specific that basic team is availing from GitHub. Anything specific or what from GitHub. For instance, are you guys using GitHub actions that you rely on or is there anything else that you rely on that is only part of GitHub. Now we use circle CI, and we're about to transition to GitHub actions in our October release, we're getting ready to start up the beta cycle and start shifting over CI servers. I think that's what prompts the discussion and the concern is that, you know, it'll be all GitHub. And that process inside discussions about well what if we created distributed repeatable builds, which is like no small project but I think it's possible that we can have you know from the script multiple people create the exact same binary so you just build it independently. Share hashes and posted that's one theory that came up but there's no no concrete request for action there's just you know, a concern that there might be a problem on the horizon and there might not be. We don't know we just, you know, they just, I think we just need to know what the boundaries are and what what what we need to navigate if things do change. And it was triggered by the move from circle CI to GitHub actions. So I guess the next topic is the project health. Jim, did you want to take us through the discussion. Yeah, so I think at this point. I had great discussions that that resulted in a bunch of finding and actions to follow up on. Today I just plan to give an update on some of the actions that took place since the last time we had. And there's still more to be done. And there are two actions we had from the last time we talked. One is, so we were going to talk to the limit, the Linux inside team to discuss enhancement to the inside for analytics, pulling data from GitHub. And with that, thanks to the corporation from my entry, we were able to talk to the technical lead from that team. We gave our findings and the matrix that resulted from our discussions to them. So they were going to look at it and map those to possible future roadmap items for it haven't followed up on that thread. So that's a future take to get back a circle back with them and see what we can do in the short term in the coming. So that needs to be said, the other follow up setting up a new repository. That you start doing some of the things that we don't believe are possible with inside with some time to apologize for that. I'm hoping when we get together and work on some we can spend some time to work on. I don't have anything to share. I just wanted to reach back to the previous conversation, and we can get data from get lab and Garrett. Those are those are supported for insights. I guess the only thing I would add is just on the discussion that we had with the LX insights team seem very positive, right? They're really looking to understand kind of the requirements that we had and think about how they fit into the robots that they have. So I think there's, you know, possibly some good sorts of ideas that we've been able to impart, if you will, right through the discussions that we've been having here through the task force. And so I think, you know, we may end up in a situation where we can either have API or specific dashboards that we're able to create to focus in on kind of the metrics that we've been discussing. So good discussion all around. Any questions on kind of the update from Jim? Well, thank you, Jim, for the update. Any items that anybody did think about since we started the meeting that they want to bring up a room? Right, I just wanted to remind everyone to join the security task force this week we had very low attendance. Okay, that's great. The quick update of what's happening there just for so that everybody's aware of what's happening at the security task force. So initially I know there were a couple of weeks where we started discussing the scope of security task force to be so many to include so many items but then once we figured out exactly what made it to be done. So after the previous discussion that we had in the TSC based on the feedback, a specific and targeted proposals have been put on and within the security task force wiki page. So I'll be sending out an email with a couple of proposals that were discussed in the previous discussions previous meetings. And I would request request everyone to please join the call. And maybe next time next instance next Tuesday that we are meeting is during the global forum. We can probably cancel that instance and catch up during the event and discuss how to go about with the task force itself and remaining pending actions that we can discuss briefly. And remind the folks on the call when is the next security task force call. It was due to happen during the event on 13th. And that will be cancer because we will be at the global forum event. Okay, so just FYI there is as a rotating agenda goes there is a slot for the security task force in next week's TSC meeting. So I guess it's good timing if if nothing else right given given when the next normally off schedule one was for outside of the TSC. So there could be some discussion obviously next Thursday and then maybe some additional follow up at the global forum. Sounds good. There is probably one more update that I thought I'll bring it up now that we are all here. So there is the I know a few months back during the TSC call David had brought in additional people from I think the UX people from the LF staff team to discuss the landing page for hyper ledger in terms of helping new contributors also getting new different person as giving the information of what this word looking for within hyper ledger. And as part of hyper ledger India chapter as well we had come up with start here hyper ledger guide that would lead new developers look out for where they can get involved easily get plugged into within hyper ledger team foundation community. So this year we also have an internship mentorship project that's going on, which is to enhance that UX part of that particular persona. So we had shared a couple of ideas and Bobby also had reviewed from the LMDWG group. And we had email conversation so far I know I have to follow up on email replies there is a big list of email spending on me. But there would be proposal of a new task force that may come in based on that discussion. Okay. A quick heads up on that. Appreciate that. And then speaking of that particular topic I know that was coming out of the task force the project gaps task force where we had reviewed those mock ups for the new website and how that would flow. I mean, hyper ledger staff have any update on the progress of that I think, you know, where he ended that was saying it would be great if we could have something where we could actually play with it and click on things and see how it would work. And I'm just curious if there's been any updates where that's at when we might expect to see that. Right Sean, I know David's not on the call today. Anybody have any updates or should we wait till David's around. I think we'll need to wait for David. I don't know anything more. I do know that our design team has been really overwhelmed. So it's been difficult to get them, you know, to get their time. So I don't know. Sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Oh, so I was just going to say sorry I'm in the same boat. Okay. No worries. No worries. Any other items last items that anybody would like to discuss before we close the call. All right, I see no hands. Nobody coming off mute and we'll take that as a no. Again, we do have two items at least on the agenda for next week. We have a presentation on Orion that is scheduled. Hopefully I know you've been able to confirm that. And then secondly the security task force. Yeah, it's not confirmed yet, but I'm hoping it will work. Okay, so we're hoping for that one to come through before the global form. So look forward to talking to everybody next week. And we hope you have a great, great week. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you.