 All right, welcome to the March 10th HIPAA ledger TSC call. As you are all aware, I know you're all aware because you've been on this call before. You have to abide by two things. The first is the anti-trust policy notice which is currently displayed on the screen. And the second is the code of conduct which is linked in our agenda. So if we go ahead and start our agenda, we'll see that the first thing is the announcements, the standard announcements which we see every week of the Dev Weekly Developer Newsletter that goes out each Friday. If you have anything you'd like to add, please leave a comment on the Wiki page and it will go out to hundreds of different hyperledger developers. The second announcement is that the Hyperledger Global Forum 2022 has been set for Dublin, Ireland, September 12th through 13th. There's an events page up there and the CFPs are now open. They close on April 29th. And if you have anything that you would like to talk about that you're doing that is interesting within Hyperledger or with Hyperledger projects or labs, please consider submitting a CFP. Yeah, any other announcements that anybody would like to make? So if there's no announcements, I did leave on the agenda, the Hyperledger Cello Report. There was a few responses that came back from the Hyperledger Cello community to the questions that were asked. I am not sure that there's anything specific that we need to talk about in this particular meeting, but if anybody has any questions that we should make sure we follow up on, that's now it's the time to bring it up. Okay, so nothing there. We do have the Explorer and the Firefly Reports that are due. The Firefly community has reached out to ask for an extension, which I appreciate the ask. We normally don't get people asking, but it is nice to know that people are out there thinking about the fact that the project reports are due. Next week, Hyperledger Ursa is due. There is some conversation about the confusion in the dates. In the project update calendar, we see that the dates listed there are the Thursday of the TSC call, with a note at the top that says that the reports are due the Monday prior, so that people have a chance to review them before our TSC calls. But the calendar entries that show up are also on Thursday, which is kind of confusing for people. So I think maybe from here forward, maybe it would be a good idea to allow for those Thursday dates to stand and we'll review them in the following Thursday's TSC call. Does anybody have a problem with that? Dana, was that I came off mute? I'm not sure if that was a problem. That was a no, sorry, no problems. Okay, great. Thank you, Dana. I appreciate the fact that I'm not the one speaking anymore. All right, so with that, the first thing that we have is an ask from Min in our discussion topic. Yeah, Arnaud. Sorry, I was trying to figure out which report I read this in, but there was a comment about the website not being easy to find for the project. I think that was in the hope ledger grid one. Yes, and I put a comment saying, yeah, I think because Dave responded saying, yeah, we should look into this, but I think it's something we really ought to have a discussion on at the TSC level. So I'm not saying we need to have that discussion now, but I mean, for those who haven't seen my comments, this is about, you know, some projects I've used the capability that is offered to projects to have a top level website on kind of like grid.hyperlegio.org and it's not used universally. And this is not really linked from anywhere else as far as I know. So you kind of have to know that this site even exists. And I know this is something I have looked into for fabric before, but I was like, well, this is yet another webpage to maintain and I just give up. But I think, you know, the point is the grid project reports that they would like that page to be easier to find. I guess they are making an effort to keep it maintained and they may be a bit frustrated that it's not so easy to and so visible. So my point is merely that I think they should have, we should have a discussion on this. Okay, Jenna. So basis uses as we came on and what we did is we just pointed to our landing page for our documentation. So we're not really maintaining a separate landing page. It's just an easier place to get to our read the docs documentation. So that's if you're concerned about maintaining extra places, I think we could reuse that landing that the project.hyperlegio.org and point it to an existing resource even if it is their weekly page. And just a question, Dana, the basis.hyperlegio.org that's something that is provided through Hyperledger or is that something that you guys have set up separately? It's read the docs is where we have the docs, you put all their docs. So I thought that Hyperledger had a standard read the docs participation. Maybe we don't. Sorry, Dana, my bad on that asking the question properly. The actual URL that's being routed through the Linux foundation and Hyperledger or is that being routed through somewhere else? It's a subdomain. So it has to be managed by Hyperledger. So whoever controls the Hyperledger or domain configure it for us on our first month or two on the project. Okay, so then to Hyperledger staff we have for some, but not for others. And what's the reason? Ryan knows the answer to that question, I believe. Yeah, I just haven't been, I did it. So blame me. We have PCC, I can jump in there and add subdomains. I'm a little bit reticent to do it because we've kind of had an explosion of them over the last little while. At the same time, I end up saying yes, eventually. So we have like the Hyperledger challenge and start here and TSC. All of those are just things that I've added to make lives easier. And that's just a DNS setting in PCC. Kamalash? Sorry, I'm not aware, but every project has some kind of this subdomain URX like BESU and like Grid because I can't find the other projects. No, so I think that's what we were just talking about. Not all of them have them, only some of them have them and they're only when somebody requests it from Ryan specifically. Okay. So any plans to have every project such kind of subdomain URX or does it depend on the project's maintenance choice? I think, yeah, go ahead, Ryan. Yeah, it's up to the maintainers to ask. Originally, it was Sawtooth who asked. So we created one and then as people have asked, they've been created. Some projects are, they don't want it and some projects do, so. Okay. I don't know, I think your point is well taken. We should probably have some sort of consistent way of doing this and I think that could be a discussion that we have in a future meeting about the way in which we proceed to have consistency across projects. Yeah, exactly. And I mean, the fact that Ryan doesn't seem to know if he really should do this or not is to me more evidence that we should have a policy and then for, you know, and after that, he can just execute based on that without having to worry about whether he's doing something wrong or not. Which I don't think is there's anything wrong there, so there's no worries. Yeah, definitely, David. Next week would be a good time for this conversation. I am talking to our internal designer about mocking up some new ways to present project content on the website. So this could be a good time. She said that by next week, she will have some mockups that we could look at. So we could talk about that and kind of the sub-domain question at the same time. And I agree with Ryan. It's very unclear if doing these is effective or not. We should probably dive into the analytics and see, you know, I think moving something off of the main website or the main Wiki, you know, could just make it that much harder to find. So I think it's very unclear. Okay, well, let's then pause this conversation until next week. All right, so then first off, Min has asked that we create a task force for reviewing the different mentorship projects. So as you are aware, yesterday was the last day to submit any mentorship projects to be considered for this year's mentorship program. And we need three to four people from the TSE to review those proposals and make sure that they're a good fit as mentorship projects, you know? Conflict of interest policy. I have one that's in consideration. I don't know that we have a conflict of interest policy. Yeah, so Tracy, just so you know, yeah, just give a little summary. So yesterday we closed the proposal submission we received 39 project proposals. So it's so great to see the community's interest in participating and mentoring this year. Many of the projects, I see a lot of returning mentors and new names, new mentors as well. And the project proposal come from a, you know, I would say, you know, it's not just dominated by certain projects. They really represent a very diverse composition for our projects, our working groups and labs. So I'm very excited to see kind of just the submissions that we got. So we got 39. So this year we'll have to unfortunately eliminate some. We have funding to fund 30. That's kind of the maximum number of projects that we can fund. So we will need a selection committee, so TSE task force to help us evaluate these projects. So this TSE is showing kind of the criteria that we've used in the past for evaluating projects. So I just wanted to validate if these, you know, the criteria is still valid and also just to see if we have suitable volunteers to help us with this process. And then in the past, have we had any sort of conflict of interest? I don't think that's an issue because they know if, you know, maybe one of the projects is yours, but we're really selecting 30. So, you know, unless you submit a 10 or a multiple, that might be an issue. But if it's this one, I really don't see that as an issue unless other people have objections because some of the mentors are going to be TSE members. I've seen that. I was going to say based on our history, there's nothing explicit because we've had plenty of TSE members who were submitting projects and on selection committee. We've had staff who have submitted projects and advise the selection committee. So I guess just, it will be obvious that you have one because your name will be on one of the proposals. You know, maybe when this task force spins up, just explicitly state, you know, this is a project that I submitted and I don't feel comfortable arguing for or against it. You know, and as Min said, we're calling from about 40 to 30. So it's not like the competition is super stiff. So I see Dana was giving a thumbs up. I think we're on the same wavelength and I'll shut up. All right, Hart. Yeah, as long as there are a handful of people on the committee, there shouldn't be a problem, right? For sure. All right, so I think what I'm asking for in today's call is to see if we can get three to four people to put their hands up as people who would like to volunteer to one, evaluate the criteria and then two, to go through and review the mentorship projects. How much? So actually, I have submitted two, three projects. So any conflict of interest, I think just mean mention about like one project doesn't matter, but actually I have three, four projects submitted. I think it sounds like the policy is just as close what your projects are, and that's obvious. So. Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. Yeah, so thanks, Taisi. I think if we were to go by what was followed for, let's say, Global Forum event last time and before that, in case of conflict of interest, it was asked not to evaluate their own proposals. However, average of rest of the scores were considered right for selecting or not selecting a topic. I don't know. It could be up to the valuation committee that we are going to form today, and they can choose to do that way if they see a conflict of interest, they could keep themself away from that particular proposal and see what others see. That's right. That's right. Okay, so volunteers. If we don't have volunteers, I think what I'm going to do is a random number of generation and pick four people. Because, I mean, look at our next topic, guys. We need to find a way for people to engage. Angela? I volunteer. Thank you, Angelo. I volunteer. Thank you, Kamlesh. Anyone else? Dano? Dano, is there a hand for volunteering? Yes. Thank you, Dano. Peter? I can volunteer, and I will. But I do have five or six projects, so I would like to accuse myself from that delay or consent as well. So as long as I don't have to judge my own proposals, I'm happy to help. All right, thanks, Peter. All right, so I think we've got our task force formed, Arun. So in case you have conflict of interest in those people who raise their hands and you need any help to evaluate your own proposals as a third person, I'm okay to do that. All right, thanks, Arun. So I'll let you guys to determine the best approach for how you would like to proceed in evaluating the criteria and also evaluating the different project proposals. As always, feel free to reach out to myself if you have any questions and or Min. Min has been through this process before, so I'm sure she has some ideas that can help you out as well. Great, thank you, Tracy. I'll follow up with the task force members and we'll get this process going. Thank you. All right, so with that, the next question or the next topic is really some open discussion. I feel like we're struggling a bit as a TSC. We're not getting the sort of input that I would expect to be seeing in engagement that I would expect to be seeing from the members of the TSC. And so I wanted to try and figure out what's going on and what we can do differently. I also think that there's a bit of dialing it in, if you will. From the perspective of I have seen at least four TSC meetings that have been updated to have yourself checked off as having attended that meeting, even though that checkbox was blank because my guess is that you're going through your open task and finding that that's an open task and checking it off. So with that in mind, the questions that I have here are really a starter for how do we figure out what's going on, what should we be doing differently to allow you specifically as a TSC member to be more engaged in these discussions during the TSC call and also between the TSC calls. So the last couple of meetings, there have been action items coming out of those TSC calls but they'll follow up or follow through on those. What are the reasons that you're not reviewing these project reports as they come in? I checked them yesterday. There were five TSC members who have completed all of the reviews for the Q1 reports, five of the TSC members who have reviewed less than half of those project reports and then the remaining four, in this case, being somewhere in between. So what's happening there? And what can we do to improve these meetings so that you feel like you can participate and engage in them? Bobby. Hi, Tracy, thanks. I know I've sat on other boards and the ones that I find that the most activity happens in are the ones that have committee members, I mean, like separate committees. So for instance, you would have for the initiative to learn more about the special interest groups and the working groups, you would have one of the TSC members be in charge of that so that the TSC is formed of committees and each member of the TSC sits on a committee. And then for the meeting, everyone reports, whether they report nothing happened in my committee and the committees could be ad hoc, they could be set up permanently, but then everyone on the TSC is responsible for report every TSC meeting. Okay, thanks, Bobby. Dave. I was thinking along the same lines that I think we're most effective when we have task forces with a few people on the task force and they come back and report on their findings or proposals to the TSC rather than kind of just talking about it for talking about something for an hour that we might not have prepared for ahead of time. So I think a good example of this was the chat one. I thought that worked really well, where a few people went off, did some homework and came back with some proposals. And I think we had a pretty concise discussion around that and made some decisions around that. So I think that's a good model. Then I guess the question is, how do we ensure that the task forces are staffed? And I guess for that question, we could brainstorm the task forces that we think we need and we can have everybody sign up for at least one of those. So those are my thoughts. Thanks, Dave. Yeah, I was gonna ask that follow up question at some point if nobody had volunteered. How do we staff them? Make sure that their staff appreciate the thoughts. Kamlesh? Actually, my thoughts are like, not just when we review the project report by just clicking by our name. Maybe in the, whatever the project reports available, maybe we could have a kind of broader discussion what the particular project report is offering, what are the details are there. And then on the same time, we will mark like who are discussing the report instead of someone individually check the report and just mark the click tick. That could be one of the, I think maybe same thing David is mentioning or maybe creating a task force. But I think maybe it's not task force simply every time when the new reports come, we have a proper discussion on the project and we just click the kind of do the report review it's up in the TSC, I believe. Other thoughts? So, Kamlesh, I just wanna make sure that I understand you're saying that there would be a task force to review the reports and then report to the TSC what they found. No, no, actually I'm mentioning like not a TSC and not a different work force task force but all the TSC member and like whatever the TSC meeting we have in the maybe see a locate maybe 10, 15 minutes and go through the report and kind of review the report on the same time when everyone should mark what you're understanding about the project and they are free to explore the more detail about the project individually but there's some kind of proper call in the TSC itself to discuss the project and mark the project review on the same time. Yeah, so right, I think it's more going back to what we used to do a project reports where we spent quite a bit of time in the TSC call reviewing these project reports having the person who submitted it or people from the project come and have a conversation with the TSC specifically. Gotcha, thank you. Yep, Hart. Right, sorry for my slow response on the mute button there. I will say that we actually stopped having the long discussion on the project reports because that was so dominating the TSC agenda that we couldn't do anything else. And so we opted to have a shorter discussion for those. So I'm not sure we want to go back to what we were doing before but if there's some good way to have discussion then maybe that, you know in a way that doesn't dominate the whole meeting time then that might be good. Yep, that's hard. Jim. Yeah, to me, I feel like the thing that I've been doing on the committee is falls into two camps. One is process related things that needs to be identified by the members and then follow through. I feel like for those at least personally, I've been kind of participating or being active maybe 60, 40. For example, for certain things that I know a lot of people are passionate about and there's members that's already been tagged to do them. I don't think my involvement is gonna help quite much. The inclusive language, the chat. Those are done very effectively. I didn't think I would have helped too much if I participate more. Others I feel passionate about myself, you know, the project data. So I tend to participate more. So that's on one camp. The other is about the project. I think we may have a problem there but maybe that's only because me as a new member I have to do a lot of homework to understand what each project does. And before I do that, I don't feel like I can contribute effectively and it takes time to understand them. And I kind of privately prioritize the projects. I care a lot about Firefly obviously and cactus and bevel, but in the Indian areas in February I already know a lot, right? So, but for the recent project it's gonna take me some time before I can effectively review the reports. So I don't know if it makes sense for us to ask the projects to present to the TSC that may be a radical idea. We're supposed to understand them already but I don't know how others feel about this. So we can, as a team, all get to understand the projects a little better. I think in the past we've talked about maybe like once a year the project would come in into a live report. So like one out of four reports would be a live one. We've mentioned that before. I think that's a good idea but I'll shut up because I didn't raise my hand. Stay. Oh no. Yeah, I mean, I actually wanted to remind people that we have said that before. And in fact, we had a more open invitation to all the labs, all the working groups and CIGs. We invited them saying, hey, why don't you come to the TSC and tell us what's going on in your area of the hyperledger and you can kind of help socialize what you're doing by doing that. And to me, I always felt like when we had the hack fest for those of us who've been around for long enough to remember those. I mean, it was indeed an opportunity to get a little bit of an update of what's going on in other parts of the hyperledger which we have lost unfortunately because we don't really have that. And yes, there's the global forum but it doesn't quite do the same. So I am happy to remind people that this is an opportunity and maybe we can kind of be more proactive in seeking presentations from different groups. And I say groups as a general thing is to be encompassing projects, working groups and so on. But so I think that's a good thing but I also wanted to follow up and reinforce what Hop was saying in response to Kamilesh is about the project reports. I mean, I would also not want us to go back. And I think what's being talked about is not really addressing the issue that Tracy raises which has to do more with a lack of participation from the TSC members. We, I think the way the reports are being handled is actually I like this mode where I can look at my own time, I look at the reports and I often comments, I ask questions, I ask clarifications, I point things out and I think more people should do that. And yes, of course you can just click and forget about it but to have your checkbox click but that's kind of defeating the purpose. And I don't want to force people to do that work if they really don't want to by forcing everybody to do that in some kind of open meeting. So. Okay, I'm sorry, I don't know. Peter? Two things. First one, I will have to leave 15 minutes early so about that. And then now on topic, second thing, I would, what if we just assume that maybe the people who are not regularly reviewing the reports, maybe they have some things set up in a way that they don't actually see or forget. I know this happened to some cactus maintainers where they wouldn't know anything about me talking to them on GitHub because they didn't have the modification set up. So going on that, giving everyone the benefit of that angle, we could do sort of a roll call for people who missed to review reports and then they could either just say something like what Jim said, which I would then totally accept for example, that while this project or that project I was just comfortable actually judging anything on the report because I haven't got to know it. And then of course for those who just forgot a little bit lazy, it can be a great reminder such call out that they actually need to do this. And Speeder, there's things that go through my head about that, which is would we be encouraging the wrong behavior, right? I check off my box so that I don't get called out in the TSE call without actually having reviewed it. I also question if people do have their confluence stuff going directly to the trash since they're not getting notifications when they get a new project report coming in. Does that also mean they have the TSE agenda going directly to the trash, which also includes all of the things to the project reports in which case that is somewhat concerning, right? But anyway, I'm not here to stop the brainstorming here. I want to improve things here more than talk about ways in which we might discourage even more people from participating in a way that we should. Hart? I will say the Confluence Notification System is pretty bad. It results in sort of like a lot of, I would say spammy notifications. I don't know sort of what the best way around this is or sort of, you know, if we notify people like, hey, if we give people one useful notification that they need to do something, they're much more likely to do it than if they get like dozens of confluence spam notifications. So I don't know what the best technical approach to this is, but, you know, something around that would be nice. It's sort of the same with quarterly reports. I know I missed a couple because like the email reminder told me a different day or something because the calendar wasn't synced. Yeah, I personally have my Confluence stuff coming through. I like seeing the fact that you guys are reviewing stuff. I like seeing the fact that I can see the comments coming through on the project reports for things that maybe I didn't consider as I was reviewing the project reports. I also like the fact that I can quickly delete email which is not typically the case in my day to day. So, you know, we each have our own different sorts of ways of handling things and knowing, you know, the work that we needed to do and to keep informed on what's happening. I definitely do not get notifications for anything other than the things that have my checkbox tasks on them or things that have clicked my name off on. Okay, what else? I'd like to hear from the people who haven't spoken up. So I think the people that I know for sure haven't spoken up, Hardim, Grace, Nathan, Troy. What are your thoughts? I think I really resonated with what Jim was saying actually. So I don't want to repeat what he said but I felt like definitely, you know, I have different skills and interests that I feel like I can contribute more to in those areas. And then other areas I probably can't contribute as much. So that's typically how I balance my participation. So that definitely resonated. I think, and I hope I hesitate to open this can of worms but is there a list of what are the responsibilities for the TSE members? I mean, attending the meeting, reading the quarterly reports, I'm not sure, is that documented anywhere? Cause that would also be helpful just to pull up as part of this conversation. So I know not this past year, but last year's TSE got a welcome message and the information from that welcome message was documented. On Confluence, we could definitely go find that again as a page for reference. Whether or not it has all of the different responsibilities Grace, I don't know, in the same way that I know that the responsibilities for the TSE chair were a shock to me when I know and transitioned over that responsibility and probably similarly for from the TSE chair and probably similarly for from Dano's perspective, that's also not documented anywhere. So, right, for the vice chair. So things that we could definitely consider improving as far as what it would be to, you know, as far as responsibilities. Yeah, that makes sense. I think, yeah, I was like, I also, if it's out there, I haven't looked at it in a long time. So the refresh, I'm sure I'm not going to use a refresh but yeah, but then, and also just wanted to echo what David said, I think the task force model is definitely has proven to be pretty successful. So with so open questions as you were saying and how we ensure participation, but I did think that was successful too. So I'm just plus oneing a lot, sorry. That's okay, I do think this, I think you've created any task force that's going to have to be formed at some point for documenting these sorts of things. So it was an addition to the list, if you will Grace, not just a plus one. So thank you for your thoughts, Nathan. I think the other piece that's important to remember is a lot of our job at TSC is to try to remove blockers and get out of the way of what work is happening. So, you know, like suggestions like what Hart gave us to all attend some other community meetings besides the ones we normally attend during the week have been things that I found really interesting and really helpful because it's helping me get more context around what's going on, especially in the SIGs. And that's stuff that doesn't come up very often on our TSC calls. And, you know, hopefully as we figure out what we can do to be more engaged, part of what our conversation is, what's the most helpful to be engaged on? Cause there probably are things that we're missing that would get people more eager to get some things done prior to the meeting. I don't know that everything that we do that way has to be a new task force. Some of that might just be, maybe we need to, you know, there are cases where we have project reports where we should have five or 10 minute discussion on something that came up in the project report because not everyone is going to engage best on Confluence Wiki edits. Just, you know, that's not going to be everyone's style. Yeah, thanks, Nathan. I know last year I volunteered for a lot of, action items that were coming out of these meetings to make sure that we made forward progress on certain items. And I think that's, you know, something that we should think through as well because you're exactly right. We don't need a task force for every single thing. We just need at least one person to go out and do the work and come back and report back and then start that discussion with the rest of the TSC members. Dana. Nathan brought up an interesting thing that I think we need to, you know, clarify and figure out what's going on. And that's the SIGs. The structure of the SIGs per the charter is that they are coming from the main, the general, not the technical steering committee, but the governing board. And whereas working group and task force come from the TSC. So it's kind of unclear what our relationship with the SIG should be. I mean, this is probably an opportunity for us to improve it and clarify it as well. Hart. Hey, Dana. I will say that I think that's a part of a whole other topic where we've at least been having some conversations internally with staff about how to better streamline and redefine sort of the missions of some of the, like, the whole, I guess, SIG task force and working group ecosystem. So I absolutely agree with you that this is something that we should discuss and think about. Yeah. And just to bring up history, probably some of us don't want to revisit the SIGs and were originally, I think, suggested to be under the TSC and there was discussion that it didn't make sense to be under the TSC, which is why they now fall under the governing board. So I think some of the issues that we've had in the past TSCs as well as potentially this TSC is that if you weren't there for the history, it's not documented anywhere. So nobody knows why certain things are why they are. And I think that is a mechanism that means that the same sorts of things come up over and over again. We had that, I think, not last year, but maybe the year before TSC, where we were basically covering the same topics over and over and over again. And I think it got really old for some of the TSC members because we had that discussion already, why are we having this discussion again? So I think that we have to do a better job of conveying what is now currently tribal knowledge of what's happened in the TSC in the past. Hart? I'm gonna say I 100% agree with that. That's really important. And this has caused some big problems in the past. I mean, particularly my favorite, I guess, well, I don't wanna call it my favorite is the wrong word. But perhaps the most notable area here on my mind is all of the criteria around project incubation proposals, right? We say some things documented, but then there seem to be a lot of unspoken criteria that's just sort of like everybody knows that, well, obviously not everybody, but existing TSC members like projects that do this or have this and sort of do projects have come in and struggled with this because what kind of projects we have accepted are not always what we've documented, right? And I just agree that documenting what this TSC has talked about, if we decide not to do something, that's really important to document that too and remember that for future TSCs. I can recall there have been some things that over the course of the TSC, we have spent at least a month, three times, talking about something and deciding not to do it. And if we had sort of written down and remembered why we didn't do it before, it probably would have turned some of these very long conversations into something very short. So I would love to figure out how we can sort of write down this institutional knowledge so that as new people join, they can be caught up to speed in a sort of quick and painless manner. But I think we have gone a tad bit off of our topic of how do we end up with a more engaged TSC? As a TSC chair, I'm here to facilitate and help us get to a place that we want to be as a TSC together. And I need some help. I think this is my call for help, struggling as a TSC chair to know exactly what it is that you guys want to do, how it can help make sure that that happens and move us forward in some way that's successful. Jim? Yeah, thinking back on the early days of fabric, lots of passionate discussions on TSC calls, I feel like we're all geeks and nerds and developers and engineers and nothing excites us than a concrete technical discussion or topic. I don't know how to introduce that kind of content to TSC calls. Maybe we can do more to encourage the community to propose more things. I think we're taking a pretty passive role right now, but maybe we can take a more active role. For example, just as a random example, the merge between the permission chain and the public chains in a sidechain pattern with token bridges, that is like, in our opinion, is something that's emerging quite strongly. What can we do so we can do more steering rather than just reacting? That's sort of what's been through my mind lately, but I don't have a concrete proposal of how to introduce that. Okay, thanks, Jim. Hart? Yeah, so this is a great point, Jim, and this also ties into my previous point. There have been at least two TSCs in the past where the chair went into the, you're saying that they were going to try to make the TSC steer more and have more technical content. And I assume Arno has his hand raised to also talk about this point. So this has been sort of tried before and sort of the solutions have not had a big impact. There has been a lot of resistance at the project level to having the steering committee do any kind of actual steering, like if all of the projects have been extremely resistant to basically giving the TSC any input or any power over technical design. So I'm not sure that that's going to be something that people are okay with because historically they haven't. There have been a lot of attempts to bring up technical topics to the TSC or have people give technical talks or have the projects highlight featured talks. For whatever reason, these haven't been super effective. Now, that doesn't mean that it's a bad idea. Maybe we just weren't doing it right in the past and maybe there are better ways to do these things. And we have often wondered if the TSC has sort of really not become technical. It's become more of a community management organization. And should we more publicly relate that fact? I guess I'll turn it over to Arno. Thank you, Rob. And to answer that very question you just ended up is, I think I've said that before, but I'll repeat. I mean, if you look in the Linux Foundation sphere, there are many projects where they have technical advisory committees and technical steering committees. And typically I think what happens is we started with what was expected to be a TSC when we really have a TAC. And if you wanted to publicize the fact that we are more for TAC than the TSC, we should just buy the bullet and rename it. I don't know that it matters so much. I was never really motivated enough when I was here to make that as a proposal, but that's a possibility. I think the way you describe the situation though is a bit more negative than it really has been in the sense that I don't think that projects are not interested in having the TSC getting involved as much as we all have involvements in different projects that are fairly functioning on their own. And there is, I mean, as Jim said earlier, I mean, it requires quite a bit of investment for somebody who is in a project. So I'm familiar with fabric. If I wanted to start telling Bazel what they should do, it would take a lot of investment from my part. And so I think this is why those discussions just don't take place. Now, I wanted to say one more thing though, which is where I initially raised my hand, is that, you know, I think we need to make sure we are addressing the right problem here because is the problem, which I think, you know, Tracy started from that we don't have enough participation, active participation from the TSC. And is it because we are not tackling the right topics that would excite people, including some technical issues? Or is it, you know, that people are just not participating? And maybe there is no problem, we don't need to. And maybe the right answer is to reduce the number of TSC calls because, you know, there's a difference if you have problems that are not being addressed by the TSC and if, or it's just that, you know, we don't have as many problems as maybe we, we think. Yeah. I don't know if you understand what I mean. Yeah, definitely I don't know. I, it was funny that you were talking, I'm like, she would just reduce the number of TSC calls and you went right there. And so I appreciate those thoughts. Sure. Kamalash. So I think hard and I noticed, I think there's a very good point because if you see the definition of TSC, like is the responsibility of TSC are to steer the technical direction of hyperledger, right? That is the definition. And even I take an example when I elected first time in a TSC. So I got some comments and feedback from the community or maybe my network like hyperledger really needs some kind of really technical string. So I think this is interesting, like how is a TSC, we could directly involve with the technical decisions or maybe involvement with the projects. I think I had mentioned that there is some kind of resistance from the project maintainers. But still as a, we are a technical committee and we should have kind of involvement with the project level, the technical decisions or maybe technical roadmap of the projects. I think something maybe we need to some kind of proper plan or maybe we can get a proper workforce to even decide what should be the TSC roles and responsibilities. And like another mention maybe that's why the TSC member is not that much active and getting involved in the convergence. So I think really some kind of something is needed to be done. Thanks so much, Rhett. This was the proposal that I put forward last year to reform the TSC. I'll put a link to it in the chat. I think something along these lines might help. I think also reducing the number of meetings or moving to a pure email would probably also help because then everyone would be able to do their thing on their time. But this is, it's just a proposal from last year. And I want things to change. I'm just not sure of the right way to get there. Yep. I think definitely send this out. It's something we can review. I think last year when you submitted this it was shortly before the election. And so I think it didn't get as much attention as it probably should have. And so I think now is the right time for us to be thinking through these sorts of things. We're about halfway through this term, if you will. So now is probably a really good time to take a look at the organization, the structure and what we want to do with the TSC going forward. What I've heard so far is some of us think that it's advisory. Some of us would really like this year. And there's been, as far as the steering part some challenges in doing that in the past. So, but with the new people who have joined the TSC they may have other ideas that would contribute to ways in which we haven't thought about before that could help. Arno? I just wanted to add one more piece to this tag versus TSC to say that those things are not exclusive. In CNCF, which immediately is much bigger than Hyperledger, they have both, right? So the tag is kind of at the very high level and that's stuff like we do here. And then you have TSCs that are much smaller in scope and that really talks about the actual technical steering of different very closely related projects. And if we add like something like project families which is a topic that has been brought up you could imagine having TSCs for a single family you have a TSC. Just wanted to... No, that's an interesting idea, Arno. And definitely something for us to consider. So I see that we have just two minutes left before the top of the hour. We did not have a chance to hear from everybody on the call today. And I feel like that is a concern that I have as a TSC chair that either you're not comfortable to speak up or you're really so disengaged that it's not worth speaking up. If it's the former, please reach out to me directly. I'm happy to take your feedback and hear your comments. I want to make this a better experience for all of us. I want you to feel like it's something that you enjoy participating in. You are volunteering your time and it is much appreciated the time that you do spend and so I want to make that time that you're volunteering your time and efforts to be an enjoyable time for you. So again, please, if you do have additional comments, you weren't comfortable saying these things in front of the larger audience and a call that's being recorded, please reach out to me. I'm happy to hear those. If you're not comfortable speaking to me, please reach out to somebody on the Hyperledger staff and have that conversation. This is all about us and making Hyperledger as a community, Hyperledger as the technical steering committee, a better place for all of us. So I appreciate the thoughts. I have taken notes on what you've said today. I will try to summarize those in our meeting notes so that we have those for us to consider things that we might want to do moving forward. Again, just appreciate your time and your effort. So thank you everyone for participating. And with that, I'm gonna close the call. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you. Yep, see ya.