 Okie-dokie. Let me find the thingy with the agenda thingy. There it is. Okay, welcome everybody. Hopefully those of you in the States had a nice Thanksgiving break, and it's good to be back after a few weeks hiatus for me. So on today's agenda we've got a New York Hackfest update from Todd. A note on the White Paper Working Group that Hartman Gummary is now the workgroup chair, elected, I think, unanimously by the other members of the working group. I'd like to thank Mick, I'm sorry, for David, rather, for all of his work and wish Hart some good luck. And that actually triggers the last topic, which is a working group charter discussion. Not just for the White Paper working group, but I think for all of them, that Mick will let you, if you're on, open up. If not, I'll try and vouch for you. We have had an ongoing discussion about the project incubation exit criteria, and I'd like to get that to a vote. And then we have, I think on the 10th, there was a review by Bawa of Project Cello and the proposed incubation of that new project, and so we need a vote for that. And if Brian is on, I think we should get an update on the effective working group. So, any other topics for the agenda? Somebody's typing, he's on the phone. Okay, thank you. If not, okay, Todd, I'll let you pick it up with the reminder of the Hackfest. Yep, sure thing. So, if you have not already registered for the Hackfest, please do so ASAP. As of right now, we have 77 registered. We're continuing to see that climb. We will hit a max of 100, and we will stop registration at that point. So, please get that done as soon as possible. And then the other thing in the agenda that went out, we have a draft agenda for the Hackfest. I'm copying both of these things into the chat window. If there's topics that you want to see get discussed or if there's things that you want to present on, please drop it in there. If you have a workgroup that's looking to hold some sort of session, please get that slotted in. Otherwise, like all the previous Hackfest, we will run this in on conference format, spending the first 30 minutes or so mapping out the two days based on the group that's there and the variety of interests. Any questions on that before we move on? No, but I would like to get a sense of... So, I know that Richard, I think you're going to be there, right? And I believe that Dan, you're coming Tuesday, right? Yeah, that's correct. I'm wondering if we could think about maybe having a session that just sort of talked about where do we go from here on Tuesday with the various top level fabric, you know, DLT, whatever you want to call them, platform projects, and the potential of Corda, obviously. I'd like to have a conversation that sort of talks about, you know, where do we think we want to go from this? Do we want to think about consolidation at all? Do we want to think about component swapping? Do we want to think about sharing functionality and so forth? I think it'd be worthwhile to have maybe 90 minutes to sort of think about where we go from here with the projects that we have and explore different ideas about how we might be working a little bit more collaboratively. So I'd like to add that to the schedule on Tuesday if others agree that that's worthwhile. I mean, if people think it's too soon to have that, you know, we can put it off, but I think having it face to face would be better than having it on a call. So I'd do it for that. I think, I mean, we may not be able to reach any immediate conclusions, but yeah, I'd love that. So I mean, we've got, I mean, I won't rehearse it now, but we've got, there's various things we've written that we think might be reusable by others, and there's probably more we should be doing to look at what's in the code bases, but yeah, I'll do it for that. Okay, all right, I'll see if I can find a 90 minute spot in here. Okay, thanks. Any other? I just joined. Oh, hi, Nick. Hey, Chris. Sorry. Anything else, if not? Okay. If not, then I guess next up would be the incubation exit criteria discussion. And Todd, could you paste the link in just for everybody? Sure thing. I always want to click on the link. It doesn't do anything. Thanks. I wasn't there on the 10th, but I believe in, and again, others can weigh in and just sort of agree if I'm capturing this correctly, but the way that I understood it, and I meant to update this, but I haven't had a chance to as I've been traveling, but what I took away from listening to the recording of the meeting on the 10th and reading the minutes was that the requirements as stated for the minimum requirements seemed about right, and that when we got into the additional requirements, that those were deemed basically more about the maturity of the product, not the project, and so they didn't, I mean, they're important. Obviously, we want to factor those in, we want to capture them and not lose sight of them, but by the same token, they aren't really relevant to exiting incubation from a project perspective. So if everybody is in rough agreement with that, then what I would propose is that we take a vote on the exit criteria as written and stop at just before additional requirements and basically take that section out and just record it someplace else in the Wiki for consideration of going to general availability or whatever we want to call the formal release of a product, or have I talked to that correctly? Yeah, I think if you leave out the additional requirements, then I don't really see a big difference between incubation and an exit, so what does it really make sense then? I'm sorry Tamash, there was a little bit of static in the beginning. You're saying if we eliminate additional requirements, then if you eliminate additional requirements, then it is much more left than what is actually being put into place for incubation. I'm sorry Tamash, there was like a feedback thing in the middle of what you were saying. I didn't hear it again. If I eliminate the additional requirements, then there's not much different than what? Than incubation. Yeah, I think what Tamash is talking about is what is the difference between entering incubation, what is required to enter incubation, and what is required to exit incubation? Well, so the requirement for incubation is basically described in the life cycle document where you just have to have a proposal with a clear description and a well-defined scope, some resources, identified maintainers, and to have it be vendor neutral. I mean, there's a pretty low bar. I'll just let him try to just join. Yeah, the key word you mentioned there, one of the key words is scope. And we decided that scope as given for what's being developed is sufficient to get out to exit incubation. If we look at the additional requirements versus the existing requirements that are part of the overall solution, that's enabled by the existing solution, can we vote on the scope to deem that complete to exit incubation? For example, we may find that looking at the existing requirements, there might be a very important gap that needs to be addressed. So that's the sort of decision I would do and say, you know what, we do have a well-rounded scope, and at the point we are, we should really exit incubation. Just some consideration here. Okay, so maybe we're not ready for this. I thought we were, but maybe I misunderstood what I heard in the discussion. But then again, Todd, I'm very new to the process. I've wanted to see you to join the team. So it's going to be a consensus as to whether we're at that point that we all agree we should exit incubation. But to do that, we need to look at the additional requirements and ensure that the scope is decoded of a solution that can exit incubation. Okay, so again, let me see if I can capture this. There's a distinction between the project and the product. And again, I'm not talking about a product in terms of something you sell, but as much as the product is the output of a project. A project is the collection of individuals working collaboratively on a product. And the function of incubating a project is to be able to essentially pull together a team, get to the point where the team basically is operating within the norms of what we describe in this document here, in terms of their GitHub or Garrett, as the case may be, has been created. They have mailing lists. They're using them effectively. They have a continuous integration pipeline. They've got adequate test coverage. They're doing documentation that essentially we're looking for the maturity of the project in terms of do they know what they're doing and are they doing it right or is it a complete dysfunction? And so that's what incubation is really all about. Incubation is about pulling together and growing a diverse community of contributors and collaborators working on a thing. Now, the maturity of the thing, the product, is an independent thing from incubation. It has nothing to do. You could bring something in that's fully baked, but it still has to go through incubation to demonstrate that the project team, the individuals that are working on it, are operating in the mode that we expect of a project within the hyperledger community. And that it's a different discussion about whether or not something is ready to be anointed as 1.0 and so forth. And so again, that's what I thought I heard on the previous call. And so I just want to make sure that we're all on that same page. Yeah, so Todd, it's just for some clarification. What would you consider the purpose of scope as in a charter for a project? And that also applies now to intubation here at the project. What is the purpose of scope in that intubation, you might say, project or in the hyperledger project? There must be some significance regarding scope. Is it defined to the point that we can say yes, we can get out of intubation? And that's the only concern I have. Have we done that due diligence? I agree with what Chris elaborated there. The additional requirements to me are very much the requirements for majority of a product. At the point where we want to say that, you know, we are releasing 1.0 and we have to have these criteria seem to be suitable. But for incubator to exit, for a project to exit incubators, we have to demonstrate that we get the process down, the process of developing the project within our community. And it seems to me that, you know, the minimum requirements section define just that. So I would agree with the minimum requirements but not the additional requirements. That's a very good point. So I think if that's the case, the scope should cover just the minimum requirements. As long as we agree as a team, this is the point where we've all agreed that yes, the minimum requirements constitute the scope of what we need to do also. So I think that's what I'm trying to establish. But then Tomas said he wasn't clear. And maybe I misunderstood you, Tomas. But then you were saying that what we've described here, you aren't really sure of what the distinction between entering and exiting incubation is. But to be able to enter incubation, you expect what is an enumerator that's a minimum requirement. So besides building the community, what has happened during the incubation? No, but Tomas, I don't think that's accurate. For instance, sufficient test coverage. I don't think we have that as a requirement to get into incubation, right? So I think if you put the two side-by-side, you'd find that this one goes further. Yeah, it goes a lot further. I mean, legal actually, you know, the code entering needs to be a patchy license as well. That's actually, you know, I think, you know, but exiting obviously we need to be a little bit more particular about making sure that everything is appropriately licensed. So that needs a scan or at least a desk check. You know, the test coverage, the documentation, you know, the alignment, all those kinds of things I think are determined based on the output. Whereas we've incubated things that had no code at all. Like we incubated the Python SDK. We incubated the blockchain explorer. We incubated, you know, some of the projects that we've approved didn't really have any or had minimal code documentation testing and so forth. And it was really based on what they described that they wanted to be building and how they articulated the scope of that activity that we agreed to accept. It into incubation and then it's a function of them building a community of develop a diverse community of developers, getting the process in place and, you know, using the tools effectively building continuous integration and so forth that are required to exit incubation. So everything you said here constitutes high level requirements that are part of the scope. So if we have agreed that what we've done in terms of the minimum requirements that you've very well elaborated on constitutes a complete scope for exit and incubation. I think that probably will get us to that point. I don't think this has anything really to do with scope and requirements. I think that's a very different set of things that we haven't talked about before in this context. I think what we've been consistent about in these discussions is what's the maturity of the contributors, the maturity of the team, rather behind the project. And if we need to add more specificity to that in the document then maybe somebody can propose that. Otherwise as written it seems sufficient unless somebody can suggest some harms or risks of not having it more specific in terms of those maturity levels. Yeah, I agree with Dan on that one. I mean, in fact, you search for scope, there's nothing mentioning scope in there. I, you know, Chris, I would like to us to kind of get back, I feel like we have derailed a little bit. I mean, the status of the document is that we have these two sets of requirements because we already had these kind of discussions early on when we were trying to establish this exit criteria. And, you know, what we ended up with is these two lists with the idea. I mean, at least that's what I tried to convey in the text is that the first one is the thing that we all agree we must have for all projects that want to exit incubation. And then there was this notion that, well, in some projects the very goal of the project might be to set a certain goal in performance, for instance. And it doesn't make sense, you know, to get out of incubation unless you have established a structure, an infrastructure to get to measure, you know, that goal, whether you're reaching that goal or not. It doesn't mean you've made it already, otherwise you'd be out of active probably by then. But, you know, and so we said, okay, there's a bunch of other criteria that might be defined. And I think the text says these would be defined at the onset of the project. So, and, you know, by default my assumption is these additional requirements do not apply. They are like, you know, this is up for consideration when people get into a project they may define their own additional requirements and those were just listed as examples of things that might show up in that list. So, last week you weren't there, but Brian was, we started having discussion, you know, on the security aspect. You know, the point was made rightfully that coverage is not the right measurement for security or ensuring security. And so that led to a discussion and then Brian said, you know what, this whole additional requirements section shouldn't be there. And we kind of said, yeah, maybe you're right. And I pointed out, I say, wait, this is kind of a compromise that we have here. So, if you remove that list from this document, you know, make sure you don't completely lose it and you already have to have it somewhere else. And so that's where we are. And I'm afraid that we're kind of going in a circle now between people who want to rather have more and people who rather have less. And, you know, I think maybe what we have is kind of like the right compromise. And if not, I think it's possible, technically, to move out the additional requirements to some other documents that would expand on, you know, and maybe it cannot be mandatory, but it can be like, you know, kind of recommended requirements that projects might take into consideration. This is Brian. Can I make two specific proposals? Because I, you know, definitely, you are correct Arnaud in characterizing both the conversation when we last talked as well as the one on the 10th. And I'm also looking at heart female from the 11th as well, which I know Chris responded to. And what we're all converging on is some degree of comfort with saying that the additional requirements should simply be rephrased additional consideration. And we suggest projects may want to look at this, these these ideas and at some point it may make sense to move those out into something else that is more about, you know, things that projects want to be thinking about throughout their lifespan. And certainly as they, as the, maybe we think about that in the project life, product life cycle, you know, and the naming convention kind of doc. But getting back, the specific proposal I would make, rename this section additional consideration. And then I've got a second proposal, but first let me just set that out there, see what people think. That kind of makes sense to me, because if you look at one of the most efficient real world usage, I think certainly in some domains or some industries, you won't see much real world usage until a project has graduated. You can't simultaneously be incubation and be production ready, even though we need to distinguish between team and project maturity and product maturity. But at the same time, there has to be some view as to whether the thing is vaguely credible or not. So that kind of works for me. I know it sounds like a fudge, but it works for me. So I've actually made that change. And Brian, I think that's a good compromise. Okay. And so if you refresh the page, if you're looking at it, I've done that, I've made that change. But now Brian, I think you said you had another proposal. Yeah, because there were some concerns about security, code scanning, that sort of thing. So my second proposal would be that the project aim to implement the core infrastructure initiatives badge for secure processes. And if I can direct people's attention, I'm not on WebEx, but if you go to coreinfrastructure.org, this is a Linux Foundation collaborative project. It's the one that funds the OpenSSL development. One of their programs is a badging program to basically establish that a project has achieved a best practices badge around being able to take security notices and treat them separately from your other bugs, for example. And so maybe this is something we can defer a week to look at later, moving forward on the first proposal. But if we're trying to evaluate how well this team is able to respond, well proactively look for security issues and then respond when there is one, then the badge is the only thing out there in the open source space that is a benchmark for measuring that as an attribute of the team, not of the product. That certainly seems reasonable to me. How would a badge program get your badge? There's only one badge? Only one threshold, yeah. And you didn't have to answer those questions. And that's basically having the processes in place to be able to accept security critical vulnerabilities and so forth offline, work with them, and then use the appropriate notification processes to roll them back out to the communities, essentially, with that saying? Yes. I don't have a problem with that. Hi Chris, this is Ali from DTCC. One of the feedback I do want to add, I like the idea of the badge, but I think it's very important that we be very objective. I'm good with the minimum requirements, but these have to be implemented or tied to, we should tie it to some objective metrics, right? Otherwise, this may not mean a whole lot. What is sufficient testing? What is sufficient user documentation? What is continuous setting up for continuous integration unless you're objective? And we can start with some minimal, you know, bar in terms of implementing it and we keep raising the bar or have the badges. But it should be driven more objectively rather than. It's a good starting point, but I think we should keep the implementation and objectivity in mind. So how would we defer that second proposal till later and get agreement on this document as it stands with that as a potential addendum later? And we can go back and review the criteria. They are more extensive than just a reporting process. I was just looking that up and I cut and pasted the criteria into the chat window for the go-to meeting. I'll send it around to the TSC mailing list as well. So I think deferring that so we can all review that and see what it would take. But it's designed to be a self-adastation as well. So it's kind of how strict do we want to be about it? But we should try to be consistent, if you think. Brian, it's Wipin. I read over some of the criteria and they are not vague. Many of them are very specific and it seems like a good idea what you proposed, but of course people need additional time to absorb these criteria. I agree with you completely. So, Wipin, I tend to agree. I think maybe the one that you could potentially put some sort of objective measure around would be test coverage. But I think we actually had this discussion in the past about not putting some sort of percentage or something. Because, again, we're talking about the maturity of the project, not the product. And so I think what we said that we were looking for is, and that's in the clarity below, but is the project must include a comprehensive unit and integration test suite, document its coverage, and provide potentially additional, for instance, skill test capability as being a desirable thing. It's not really saying that it has to have a certain threshold, but it is saying that you have to be able to measure it. And it's saying that you need unit and integration test coverage. And obviously I think there's security and performance and pen testing, various other things that I think from a product maturity perspective you'd want to see. But, you know, again what we're talking about here is the maturity of the project, which is really the individuals that are working on it, and are they doing the things that we desire to see them do. And so in this regard, I think these things are describing the things we'd like to see them do, and not a measure of what they have done. Does that make sense? Well, in the cryptography, for example, they say things that are very specific. So that would be a good thing to have. I mean, I don't know whether this, I mean, since the badging criteria are very generic for all projects, I don't know how this, you know, and since they are an open source initiative, they are obviously not going to have different badging criteria for different sites. No, no, no, okay, I think there's a little bit of confusion here. So in the context of the badging, I think the badging is you're basically going through and answering, do you have these things? And would Brian have a disagreement? I haven't done it. I will do it. And I think it makes sense to add something like this. Do we have a process in place for being able to handle security, incident reporting, and so forth so that you're not freaking people out, but that you are doing due diligence and managing the incidents, doing the remediation, and then effectively communicating this back to the community and applying the patches and so forth so that you aren't putting people, you're not exposing people who are who may be using the software unnecessarily. I think that's, Brian, what you're getting at is to be able to answer the question that you have those things in place. And I'd be happy to add that. I think that's something that's objective that we could add. But then I think, Vip and what you're referring to is the additional considerations, which is I think what everybody was getting hung up on in terms of scale and all those things below, those things possibly do need, because it's got maximum transactions per second and so on and so forth. Those things I think maybe I would agree that if we were using those as a measure of, is the product ready for prime time, much less production usage that I would want to be able to measure those kinds of things, and that maybe we do need to be looking at potentially having an objective set of criteria that we're using to measure, whether or not something is baked yet, which is again why I was initially considering just dropping that whole last section, simply because it was confusing. But again, the additional considerations I think is a good compromise, because while we might be considering these things, it's not necessarily that we're looking to actually objectively measure them as a specific set of criteria that we're looking for to grant a request to exit incubation. So, Chris, just a comment on that. When I read the additional considerations, and I like the section in principle, precisely because it's not requirements, I was looking at this more as can we use this document as a tool to help projects articulate what they're about more clearly. And thinking about, I'm not in favor of somebody saying there has to be a minimum transactions per second standard, but a given project should be able to say, hey, we're about high performance transactions. We should hold ourselves accountable to a particular criteria. And I would suggest a similar kind of thing about security. We need to encourage appropriateness, but the requirements for something like Navigator are likely to be radically different than the ones for Fabric or Ohar or Satu. I agree. I don't think it's a one-size-fits-all criteria. Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is it should not be prescriptive. It should not be limiting. It should be like some kind of consideration. In fact, that was the whole spirit in which we started out all these projects that people would look at what each project has done. And then if they want to use it, they will use that as a guideline in order to actually use it. Instead of just saying, oh, this has to pass the threshold in order to be released as a project. I agree with it, leaving it as additional considerations, because having some other metrics, whatever you can release on the project will force people to basically come out with some kind of metrics on their particular project. And then the adoption will depend on that particular output rather than somebody saying, no, we cannot do this. You cannot release it into production without whatever. Exit incubation without passing these criteria. I totally agree with you, Mick. And I think we are all sort of in the same page when it comes to that. We don't want any hard criteria because not every project is the same. Chris, I hear a lot of support for this document with the modification that you made with the additional considerations. Is it time to just vote on it and put it to bed and move on? I'd be happy with that, Mick. So I suggest, Todd, you want to maybe call a roll. Again, if people are not comfortable yet, then please vote no and say we need more time and more consideration. But I think I agree, Mick. Can you just be clear then that it's just the document as you've updated it today and this discussion about badges is a separate thing from later discussion? That's correct. Okay, we'll run to the list quickly then. Arno? Yes. Ben? Yes. All right. Chris? Yep. Dan? Yes. Hart? Yes. Mick? Yes. Morale? Yes. Richard? I think you had a drop. Yep. Okay. Sheehan? Yes. And Tamash? Yes. All right. So that's unanimous. Thank you. I'll start a conversation right about the security badge on the TSC list. That sounds good, Brian. Again, I think that's a good idea. I think Mick is right. We should probably just sort of get this done and move on. Okay. Thanks everybody. Next up is, I lost my place holder here. Next up is the cello proposal that Baha went over. There was a little bit of discussion, I think, on the mailing list. I weighed in when I got back from vacation. And so I think we left it as of the previous call that we would take a vote today. So I didn't see any other discussion on the list. So I would suggest that we just put the cello proposal to vote. Well, I think some of the verbal discussion we had during the proposal was whether cello would have a better chance of success being merged in with the Explorer project, rather than having it be an independent project. And so that's kind of working on things. So a few people were going to go away and take a look at things and see what they thought of that. And I think the Explorer working group or project team might have had some discussions or I was left with the impression that they were going to. Some of the folks that I interact with that work on that team took a look and that seemed to be the direction that they were leaning towards. Ah, okay. I didn't catch that subtlety and I apologize. If that's the case then I didn't see the other discussion on the mailing list and maybe I was looking in the wrong places. Yeah, I don't know. Is there anybody from the— I think it was more verbal. That wasn't captured in the meeting notes on the 11th, posted on the 11th, from the November 10th conversation, which I think was our last one. Yeah, that's why I was saying I didn't catch that. So thanks, Dan, for bringing that up. And if that's the case, is there anybody from that working group or from that project rather that can share with us what they discussed? So hi. Yeah, this is Partha from GCCC. We actually wanted to talk to Bo. I bought the tele-project because of the synergies that are present between the Explorer as well as the tele-project. But because we were busy with the SDK, a common SDK spec, we didn't take that discussion further. So I think that we are on that same idea that both have, since both have a lot of commonality, maybe we should find a common place for them to be hosted together. But it's not at finalized. It's not finalized because people are working on other things. Okay, that is fair enough. And in that light, then, what I would propose is that we defer this until that conversation can be had. Does everybody agree with that? Or does anybody disagree with that? Because it sounds to me like maybe not all the people need to have that conversation around this call and move. In which case, I think we should just try and work this offline and come back when we've had that conversation. Chris, this is Bofa. And I guess if we have time today, we can just make the conversation for whether we, how we can integrate, like, shallow with blockchain Explorer. And actually, there are also other suggestions from my side, like in the proposal. And I guess I would also like to ask you guys from Huawei also suggest how to let, to make shallow support the OpenStack platform as the underlying platform. I guess those are also very good questions and we can discuss them here and how do you think? Well, so, Bawa, I don't mind having that conversation now, but I think the point that I was on is I'm not sure all the people that need to be having that conversation are on this call. And so, I think probably the best thing to do would be now that the SDK is settled down a bit and we're in the process of looking at that just from a review perspective that maybe we should just pick this discussion up, put it on to either the technical discuss list or the TSC list and mailing list or in the forum and start having that conversation. That would be my preference at this point. And if we need to have a call, we can certainly arrange for something or we can maybe even have a conversation next week when we're all together. But again, I don't think all the right people are on and I think it would be unfortunate to have the discussion and then have to go back and revisit it because somebody missed it. So that would be my proposal is that we just sort of take this offline, put it on the mailing list, and if we need to pull together a call, I'm sure that Todd and Brian can help facilitate that. Okay. My session is like next week we can discuss because we'll be there in New York City. It will be much easier, I think. How are you? Bawa, were you coming to New York? I was not for this time. Okay. But maybe we can bring it out. Maybe arrange it. We can have a call. Yeah, we may talk through a call. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, thanks. And apologies for not catching that bit. So the final topic is the China Technical Working Group. Brian, I think you were on the hook for like a charter or something. Right. And I think there's actually two more topics. So I'll try to be or at least one more after me. So I'll try to be efficient. But given the positive response, I just did a little bit of wordsmithing on the proposal from a few weeks ago and created a Wiki page for it with a couple of determined items to put in in terms of links to the conversation tool that they decide to use, whether that's to the WeChat page or to some other place, that sort of thing. And then they really just reframed what I'd said before and proposed three specific individuals as our working group to serve as this bridge between China and the TSC. So thought it'd be worth proposing. And two of those three have accepted Bala and Victor. Charles had mentioned this before, so I'm pretty sure he'll say yes. I just hadn't gotten confirmation from him yet, but I feel like we could probably take a vote on this, adopt it if he needs to change. I can come back and propose another name. And then we revisit that in six months. Okay, so let me just sort of recap. So the governance would be that the TSC would name the chairs or the leads, and we revisit that every six months. And where was the proposal? Did I miss an email? Thanks. An email to the TSC mailing list a couple of hours ago. Oh, and I've been offline all day, so that's probably why I didn't see it. Okay. Okay. Yeah, so if you go, just look earlier from today, five or six hours ago, and it was in reply to my original thread. So if you're using a threaded mail reader, you've blended it in with others. Problem is, I'm my threaded mail reader. When I search for people and it's coming from a list, it doesn't search, right? You can't just sort by date. Hold on, I can't get way too much email. China Technical Working Group. I don't see the note. Oh, to the technical. Yeah, I sent it to the TSC mailing list, and it's called, Technical Working Group, China. Looking in the wrong place, that's why. I have too many mailing. Got it. I see it now, thank you. Okay, so the proposal then would be that, based on the charter, which looks good, that we would take a vote then on naming these three? Yeah, on approving the charter and naming those three. That sounds like a plan to me. So Todd, you want to take a roll? Everybody clear on the proposal? So the proposal is accept the charter is written, and accept the three nominees, Bawa, Charles, and Victor, as the initial leads of the China Working Group. So Todd. All right. Okay, running through Arno. Yes. Get in. Yes. Chris. Yep. Dan. Yes. Hart. Yes. Mick. Yes. Morali. Yes. Sheehan. Yes. And Tamash. Yes. All right, great. That passes unanimously. Great. And I'll go on and on with you with those names and get this rolling. Awesome. Thanks, Brian, for driving that. And thanks to the three, congratulations, I should say, to the three chairs. So, co-chairs. So the final topic is Mick. You sent, I think it was a private note to me and Brian and Todd, but maybe you want to sort of recap your point on the sort of the need, potentially, to have formal charters for these various working groups so that we have clear direction as to what we expect of them and so forth. Do you want to maybe recap that for the team? Sure. Yeah, so, you know, I'll say just in the context of the White Paper Working Group, you know, we've been working on the White Paper for, well, on the order of 10 months now. We've had more or less two complete drafts. And in each case, when we brought the White Paper back, there's been such an incredible diversity of opinions about what needed to go into it that we kind of threw up our hands like, okay, you know, how can we possibly be successful in this? And one of the things that seems pretty clear that's come out of that is that it's very difficult for a working group, I'll talk from the working group side, but I'll talk about the other side as well. It's very difficult from the working group side to make progress when we are trying to meet the requirements of absolutely everybody who's out there, meet every requirement of everyone who's out there. And so for the White Paper Working Group, for example, I know the thing that the heart is driving right now is to get clarity on an agreement on a specific outline. So the charter becomes, if that group becomes, write this paper with this outline, because in that sense, that gives us, as working group participants, the chance to be successful and actually completing the delivery of something that meets an agreed-upon set of requirements. The flip side of this is from the foundation and technical steering committee perspective is it's not obvious to me what's going on or what the deliverables are or what the outcome, expected outcome is of any of these working groups. And as a result, it feels like it's just another meeting on our weekly schedule that we have to participate in without having any clear set of deliverables. For our projects, we have required a proposal with a clear set of deliverables, a clear scope, and participants. We have not held the working groups to the same kind of rigor. And yes, I understand this is an open-source community and we all have to, many of us are doing this voluntarily. And at the same time, for us to feel a sense of progress and purpose in those working groups, both from those who are trying to consume the output and from those who are participating, having a little bit of clarity around what the expectations are, what the outcomes are, and what the deliverables are would make life a lot easier for both sides. That's just observation in working and, you know, Rah, I don't know if Rahm's on the phone today, but Rahm could talk about similar kind of things in the architecture working group where we've had fantastic discussions, right? And I think both architects, both of the fabrics have been influenced by the architecture group discussions. We've had similar good discussions and identity, but there isn't an end in what we're doing. So anyway, I'll leave it at that. It feels like we need more of the kind of charters that Brian wrote for the TSC. So I want to thank you for bringing that up. I tend to agree that if we actually sort of had formal charters for the working groups, that that would help derive a certain amount of focus. I know that there's been, certainly, and it was commented in the chat there, that the other groups have these, essentially the same issue, whether it's architecture identity. And probably the one that is probably the clearest is the requirements, because we all sort of know and understand what requirements and use cases are all about. But of course, knowing when they're done is also a different thing. So I actually tend to agree, I think it actually would probably be useful if the working groups could document what they were all about. We started these things, and it was largely somebody saying, hey, we should get together and we should talk about architectures, and so that I let Ron sort of drive that. I think that's a good thing. I do think, though, that maybe it's time that we did get a little bit more rigor around some of these things, and I think actually having a charter would be a good thing. And so maybe the thing that we do is that we should sort of let the groups go back and drive a short process of bringing forward a charter, let's say by, I know it's, we're in the holiday season here, but maybe if we can sort of request that for the beginning of January, let's say, no later to bring forward a charter and we can have that discussion amongst the TSC and with the members of the working groups and then leverage that going forward and if people need to change the scope of their charter, they can do so. But then I think you're right. I think it would help people understand what it was that they were expecting to be doing and how to declare victory and it would also give people an understanding of what each of these things was. So I think that's really a good idea, Mike. Thank you. And, Todd, this is Lennon's time to say I certainly agree with both of you. I mean, it's certainly without the clarity in terms of understanding the purpose of each of the working groups because a charter must have scope and the scope defines the area of the focus, whether they be criteria or high-level requirements or input or exit strategy. So that is certainly a good thing to have. So I'm very happy with that. We all agree that that's a good standard approach we have to adopt with all the working groups. This is Arno. I've got to run, but I totally agree. Yeah. I think we all have to run. We're just past the witching hour here. So I'd like to thank everybody again and so Todd, just could we put in the actions that each of the work groups is expected to pull together a draft charter and present it to the TSC before, let's say before the second week of January? Great. We'll do. All right. Awesome. With that, I think I'll thank everybody and we'll talk to you. Hopefully we'll see many of you on Monday and Tuesday. Yeah. Thanks, Todd. I'm trying to make it. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Thanks.