 Thank you. Welcome everyone. This is the weekly TSE call. As you all know, this is a public call. Everybody is welcome to attend and contribute. However, there are two requirements. The first one is to be aware and lead by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is currently displayed. And that you saw all know by now. And the other part is the code of conduct. Which governs our behavior. With that done. Let's get to with that further ado, let's get started. First, I want to get us kicked off by reminding you of three different things that are going on. We have the developer news letter. They are always looking for contribution. There is the mentorship program that is going on. They are looking for proposals. So you still have until March 11th to do so. If you're interested, please go ahead. And the last piece is the IBM logic. Global forum was announced. And the call for proposals has been issued. And you have until March 12th to send the proposals. And you have until March 12th to send the proposals. Now, with that said, I think we have one more announcement. This is your cue. Thank you. Hi, everybody. My name is Helen Garno. I am here as a. Now as a contractor. Taking over for Jessica. While she heads out on family leave. For a few months. So I'll be around. Doing some of the other tasks that. Jessica typically does until just about until the end of the summer. One of the things that I, she sort of left me with one of the projects that I'll be taking over is the updating of the white paper, the hyper ledger intro white paper. It is in need of an update. So we're looking to put together a task force to get that done. I know that there has been a couple of names that have been. In the last couple of months, I've been working on a couple of projects that I've been working on. I've been working on a couple of projects that have been shifted to the top of the list that I'll be reaching out to. But if anybody else would like to participate in that effort, please go ahead and reach out to me. Directly. We'll also be updating that greenhouse image. Describing, you know, the picture representation of. Of the greenhouse. So if anybody is interested in contributing or being a part of that effort, please don't hesitate to reach out. If anybody is interested in contributing or being a part of that effort, please go ahead and reach out to me. And I think the greenhouse image as you. Has been subject of quite a bit of discussion. And feedback. You know, a lot of people think it's not quite. Adequate anymore. And this is the opportunity for people to help out. Get a better one. So. Thank you for helping us move forward on this. Yeah, my pleasure. Okay, let's move on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. As I said in my email, we'll have a presentation from the telecom C group. Before we get there, I just wanted to remind people of the quarterly reports. When I looked at it a couple of days ago, I was putting the agenda together. I realized that quite a few people are not reviewed the Indie. So I just wanted to remind people of the quarterly reports. And so I haven't actually checked before the call. If the situation has really improved. Is there any questions about any of those? And this is a call for action to the TSE members to do review the reports. If you haven't done so yet. Otherwise, do we hear the borough. The report is due. I think I saw Sean. On. So Sean, if there is any chance we could have a report from the borough project. I know we didn't have any in the last quarter because. So I just have denounced that. It wasn't going to be much activity to be expected. It seems like you guys have actually changed quite a bit of code. So I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. And the. Insights and activities and the repo. Quite a few lines, of course, I've changed. So it'd be good to know what's up. And. So if a report could be put together and submitted, that would be appreciated. And otherwise, I think that covers the reports. Unless anybody has any comments or questions. All right. Hearing none. Let's go ahead and start with the presentation. So I'm not completely sure who is actually taking the lead on the presentation. Whoever is hyper ledger community. If you could please give me host back. I'd really appreciate it. Sorry about that. Let me do that. So David. Who is going to present. I, let's see, I was just looking through the participant list. It looks like Vipin and Darman haven't been able to dial in yet. They're based in India. So the timing may not be ideal for them, but this, I see Nima Nima. I don't want to put you on the spot, but would you be interested in sharing? Sure. I think. Vipin was planning to prepare some, some slides. So if it's not a problem, let's wait for a bit. If they, if they don't joined in a, in a few minutes, then I can actually kind of pop in and. Okay. I did just email them and let me, yeah, if maybe, I know, sorry about that. If you could maybe. No, that's all right. I think we can. Yeah, we, we can pick up another item before and then switch to the agenda around a little bit. Great. I'll try to figure out where Vipin is. So, all right. So while we are waiting, let's talk about. The, the first agenda, I mean, discussion item on the agenda was again, this notion of common set of labels for repos. And last time I brought it up, there was a bit of discussion, but I realized that towards, okay, but we didn't make any decisions. There is no action. So I don't know that we have made any progress. And I was left. I mean, we, I know that the, I mean, GitHub has some like by their default label, such as good first issue, apparently help wanted. It's not clear to me that the semantic for those labels is always well, good first issue. I think it's pretty clear, but help wanted is not always clear. And it wasn't clear to me whether in, for those who use JIRA, whether we could use these exact same labels. I saw that there is label with good dash first dash issue. I don't know if it's not ideal. I don't know if an alignment is possible. Does anybody know if there is one that we should, that all agree on is good first issue in my opinion. We keep talking about how, you know, what the things we can do to help contribution, you know, from new commerce. And this is one, I think is to be able to consistently, when people are browsing through the different projects, find how they get started if they want to contribute. It's, if the TSC tells me what they want, it's pretty easy for me to fix those labels everywhere. And then I, I have a question after, I have a question that is very close to this, but not identical. So whenever you guys, I don't have any limitation on spaces in the labels. I was wondering if that was. JIRA does not support spaces and labels. That's what I thought. Okay. So we're kind of talking with two of them because. So I think maybe we have to live with that. You could first issue with spaces on the GitHub and with dashes JIRA. You could migrate to GitHub issues. Nice try, right? Let's not couple those two things, please. Yeah, yeah. I understand the motivation, but. And the help wanted one. There is the, as I, when I was browsing around, I realized that, you know, some people think of this as, oh, this kind of like good first issue type of label. And, and I've seen projects where they say, oh, this is, this was like to label something that's kind of tough. And they're like, oh, this is going to require quite a bit of help. So if anybody could help with that one, that'd be great. And it's clearly not intended for a newbie. And so if, you know, we can't, I mean, it's bad to have the two possible semantics. And I would be happier if we could agree on which way, which way it is, given that we have good first issue anyway, maybe we can just say, if your new contributor just look for that label, good first issue with spaces or dashes. And that's it. And help wanted. I don't know if we want to define it everywhere or not. But I would think that, you know, we wouldn't label that as something necessarily for newbies, but more for something that, you know, that as I was saying, the use case is you actually need resources to develop something or fix a bug that's, you know, will require quite a bit of time. So that's my proposal. But I want, what do people think? It's a little thing that I thought we should agree on. And just, okay, let's agree on using those two labels. And I don't know if there are others, please tell me, but in terms of, you know, growing the community and making it easier for people to help and contribute, I think these are kind of essential. So any reactions? Daniel. So my experience with GitHub labels is those really are the two universal labels and everything else is highly dependent upon a lot of people's process. Some people make labels for bug priorities. We don't have a standard type of ledger bug priority or security labels that other people might tag security. That might be the only one worth adding, but I think we get that for free with. You know, you know, you have security issues already. So, um, I mean, unless we're going to get more needed gritty into defining release processes, I think this is, you know, the most success we can get with the least amount of effort. Just these two. All right. Tracy. Yeah, so I put in the chat. What GitHub defines each of the different labels to be. We should stick to whatever GitHub defines them to be. Um, so they, besides the two that we've been talking about, they obviously have a number of other default labels that they provide. And I just think that we should use them and use the descriptions as provided on the GitHub site. Do we have to have a label to indicate a bug? I'm a bit surprised by that one. Some people use GitHub issues as a design. So it might list this from task. I, I noticed that we have a couple of projects that are doing exactly that. They're using a plugin. I think it's cactus to run their scrums. All right, but, uh, I think these, uh, this is a good set. Otherwise I'm happy to go along with this with the caveat that, you know, when there's a space, we need to allow for a dash if you use the gira. The only one I guess is the good first issue that's multiple words. So that's not so bad. So can we agree on that set and just record that and. Tell everybody. Because I mean, to make it worthwhile, we have to have at least the documentation be updated and reflect those and say, hey, we're using those. Tax those labels, Look for those. So my proposal is to adopt this set that Thierry C just put on the channel. I see seven people have already said plus one. Is there any objections? Oh yeah, we can do the thumbs up like Bauer is doing on the Zoom meeting. I see a lot of blinking going on. I don't know what that means. How rude. That's the question. So let's say we agree upon this. So how do we enforce it? Is the TSE going to follow up on that? Are we going to look around? Hey, I found an issue which has not marked or is it just a recommendation that we are giving to projects? It's a recommendation I would say and rival want it to kind of help implementing the labels by going around and setting them. So I'm happy with that for now. Well, if you go with the defaults, I'd like that because then I don't have to do anything. For GitHub, yeah. Right, for the place where people are doing stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, anybody objecting to this? Anybody wants to be recorded as abstaining? No? Okay, this is passed. Hart? Thank you. No, sorry, I was just raising my hand to get rid of the other emoticon. I don't know a different way to do it. Yeah. All right. So that's it for this one. Thank you. It's a small thing, but I think it's worth it. So how are we doing with the speakers on the Telecom Sieg presentation? I still didn't see VP in the... Yeah, I'm reaching out to them and I haven't heard back from them either. So something must have come up. I mean, Nima and I can give you a quick update, but as we've said on the list, I mean, I think Vipin does have some interesting information for us about his experience trying to get a lab going for the group and running into some problems. So I don't know, we could either reschedule to next week or Nima and I could just give you a quick heads up and then Vipin can come and share his thoughts separately another time. Yeah, let's do that because I mean, now we have pretty much reserved the agenda, large part of the agenda for this. I'd rather we cover what can be covered now and I'm happy to have a follow up, but it can be shorter than... Okay, Nima, maybe I... That's all right. I actually managed to put together a couple of slides now. Oh, thank you for that. No worries. So I will try to... Well, that's a good job. I mean, in the few minutes we gave you... I was mainly just grabbing some screenshots, right? That's fine, thank you. Let's see if I'm going to be able to... Hopefully this will work. Yeah, so can you tell me what do you see now? Hypernetic telecom sick. All right. So my name is Nima. So I'm a researcher in Trinity College Dublin. I joined the Hyperledger telecom sick since pretty much the beginning of its inception. So what we really do in telecom sick is a group of people really, mainly from academia, the active partners, but also some partners from industry, from IBM and then some other smaller companies. So we're really trying to figure out what are the trends out there for telecom and then bring in some expertise from our own research, our own kind of projects into the group. So we were initially kind of focused on publishing solution briefs or the white papers. So we first published the optimizing wholesale inter-care settlement solution brief and our recent solution brief is the decentralized ID and access management for IoT networks. So this one will be published in the coming week, which I guess David can give you more information on that. So what we realized, publishing these two solution briefs was that so these are quite a bit of a big project, as in there are multiple people involved in it, often from multiple institutions, industry partners or academics. So sometimes they will take more than a year to complete because of the back and forth edits and so on. So what we tried to do was to, since last year, with the help of David, we started having guest speakers that was quite actually helpful to get our voices heard outside, like even outside the hyperledger community. So some of these speakers, they haven't really worked with hyperledger much. They've been working with blockchain in general and kind of we're trying to both attract their audience. So if they've worked with other projects, so they can kind of publicize these talks and then we would get attendees from those communities and kind of hopefully grow the telecom sick. So in average, we would have between 25 to 30 people in these talks, which is a good number because the core of our group is not bigger than six, five people really. So that's a good achievement, I guess, and we've been having some more interest in the group recently. So this is a good model. I'd say, I mean, not to say we should be a role model for all the other special interest groups, but this could be something interesting for other special interest groups to look into. The other things have been blog posts so we've had more than this. I just didn't have the time to put the screenshots here. So these are the blog posts on the hyperledger website. So this is also a good kind of way of getting our voices a little bit outside the circle of the Linux Foundation people. That being said, we had a couple of more things as well. We were trying to release a couple of proof of concepts from our industry partners, so from IBM and from other groups. So I was actually working with those proof of concepts. So we did take in these proof of concepts from these industry partners and then kind of modified them to some extent and added a little bit, kind of made them more user-friendly in terms of kind of adding some documentation and so on. But unfortunately, we couldn't really get them into the hyperledger labs that they get how they count to me. And Vipin is not here, but Vipin was, I think, a middleman between the hyperledger labs and the telecom sick. So it was just, we're looking to see where was really the problem there and how we can actually get access to the hyperledger labs. Yeah, that's pretty much from my side. I would love to hear the feedback from you. All right, thank you. And Nima, thanks for that. I can give a quick, I mean, I have heard Vipin share some thoughts with me about the labs process. And I can, I mean, he obviously would have more details. I can share a little bit about what I know. But first, thank you for putting that presentation together really quickly. Appreciate that. And you're right. I mean, I think a lot of the stuff to telecom sick has done is a good model for other SIGs. The guests, I have seen the other SIGs do guest presentations, but in general, that's a really great way to recruit for the group and bring new people in. You know, we always see a bump in mailing list subscriptions and then people who join that meeting and then future meetings whenever we do those. So definitely a good thing to do. The blog post, I think the group again has been really great about sharing what you're doing. But I think the main thing that you're doing that could be a really model is the publication part. You know, I think the two papers, to your point, the papers take a while to produce, but I think those are a nice deliverable that really, you know, adds a lot of value. So I think those are definitely all great. For my understanding of Vipin's challenges with the labs thing, I think there were two. I think, you know, as we've talked before on these calls, he did struggle finding a sponsor for each SIG that I've helped try to get a lab going that's always been a challenge just because they're coming in to the community, you know, from a different, you know, spot and haven't really had a chance to build relationships yet with the people who are sponsors. So that's always been a challenge. But we did end up finding, I helped him find a sponsor. And then I think he just had a couple of issues and just was not getting responses. And then it was just easier to go set up, you know, get up, repose somewhere else and just use that. So I think it was largely just, again, I think maybe a matter of relationships didn't know where to go necessarily to ask questions about the lab and was having some problems. I think getting, I think it was a permissions issue. I think he was trying to add some people to the lab, but it wasn't really straightforward how to do that. And then basically he just tried to go somewhere else. But I am trying to find Vipin. We'll try to get that information from him and share it with a group and some other format, maybe over the TSC list. So thank you. I mean, we appreciate the feedback. And, you know, it was definitely part of the feedback we got from what Tracy gathered reaching out to the SIG chairs is, you know, was there was some friction in the lab process which surprised those of us who are labs stewards because from her point of view, it seemed to work pretty well. The one point that I know is hard is the sponsor. And just so that everybody knows, we have the proposal being worked to eliminate sponsors. It's not done yet. It may not happen, but this is something that has been discussed last week and the proposal is being worked to put that before the TSC. That would simplify a little bit the creation process and the kind of situations that you describe. Is there anything else? Any comments or questions from anybody? I mean, again, the point of these presentations, right, as a quick reminder is, you know, we've all come to the conclusion that there is too big a gap between what's going on in the SIGs and the rest of the community and the projects, especially. And so technically speaking, Nopal intended the SIGs report to the board, not to the TSC. And this has created maybe a gap between the two. And so we're trying to fit in the gap by having the SIGs, you know, reaching out to them and offering to lend an ear, if nothing else, to learn more about what they are doing and what can be done to improve, can be done to improve the collaboration between the two sides of the house. So if there is no comments, I think we can- Yeah, just a quick note on that. Sorry, go ahead. I guess, yeah, sorry. Can you hear me now? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so a quick note on that. So yes, I guess the feedback loop from the SIGs is missing, especially with really the developer community, which I guess should be kind of part of the TSC if I'm not wrong. So I mean, I guess we could give you guys some good input in terms of, really, because we are really in touch with the people who are actually kind of struggling with kind of the performance issues, let's say, that is there with Hyperledger products. They can give you good feedback about, say, like the next talk we're gonna have in the group is gonna be from researchers from Queensland University. So that's gonna be really on the scalability issues of blockchain and how they're struggling with IoT use cases kind of in blockchain sector. So yeah, I guess kind of creating a new channel between the SIGs and the technical part of the project, especially with developers could be quite helpful, I guess. And the Hyperledger labs could be kind of an entry point for that, if we can kind of make it a little bit easier for people to contribute code there. All right, thank you. And just so you know, Tracy did come back to the TSC, we reported on what she had garnered from the discussion with the SIGs. And this is, we have a list of items who are going through, there is actually one. I mean, we talked about the labs earlier and trying to address some of the friction there. And then we have the other points, one of which is on the agenda actually after this. And so, and you know, I very much welcome people like yourself to attend the TSC and participate and help us go through this, you know, we tend to make decisions on their own because we don't necessarily have all the parties around the table, even when it impacts others. So I think if you can participate so much, the better. And I think likewise, Nima, I'm sorry, go ahead. Tracy has been waiting, so. No worries, I mean, I was just gonna really ask Nima, you know, what he thought that the TSC could do to help the SIGs, right? Is there something specific? I don't think Nima that you were in our call when we had that discussion. So, you know, I was looking to see if there was any specific kind of feedback that you had of what can the TSC specifically do to help out the SIGs? Yeah, I guess that that's pretty much what I thought. I mean, like creating a channel between the core hyperledger kind of developers and that the SIGs could be quite useful. Like for example, even between the SIGs, so that I don't think if that kind of connection and channel exists between the SIGs. So if there was, let's say, a bigger community for all the SIGs to come together and then once in a while and then the report to the TSC and then kind of create the feedback loop, that would be useful. And to build on what you're saying, Nima, about having that connection. I mean, Arno, thank you for that invitation for the group members to come to the TSC. But I think likewise, it would be interesting perhaps for TSC members to go to the upcoming presentation that Nima said, see if that's valuable, see if there's anything interesting in terms of, you know, requirements, for example, or technical feedback that you could feedback into the TSC or read the paper that they're publishing. You know, maybe that would be interesting. You know, maybe we could have a two-way, you know, yes, telecom members could come to the TSC, but maybe if there's somebody who's interested going there. And that feeds to maybe one of the ideas that Tracy shared about mentorship. You know, if perhaps there was somebody on the TSC who was a mentor for that group or other groups, that would be help create that back and forth channel as well. That's indeed. Thank you. Anyone else? So on the agenda, the next item is very much in that space, right? One of the items, I picked one from the list that Tracy brought up, and it's referred to as Sieg Request for Support. And if you look into it, it very much follows what we were just talking about. It's like, okay, you know, how do Sieg people can find, you know, help contributors, and sometimes just they want more information, they're seeking information from the projects and they don't have that. I think there's a general problem in terms of communication. I mean, setting up those presentations where we invite the Siegs to come to TSC is a small, you know, it's actually an attempt to try to reconnect those different communities, but it doesn't go quite far enough, right? There are other items that were reported that are also that fall into the category of, you know, lack of information, communication between the Siegs and the projects. So I, you know, I think at this point, this is pretty much an open invitation for ideas and proposals on what we might be able to do to improve the situation. Is this issue significantly different than communications in general with the projects from people maybe just outside who are trying to come in? I mean, are we solving two different problems or is it really one big problem? What's your opinion? How would you answer your own question? I don't know. Well, I don't necessarily see that it's different, a different problem per se than people coming in from outside. But maybe I would agree. I would agree, but I think that's why I kind of tie it to this problem of documentation also information. And obviously what we talked about at the beginning with Ellen, you know, driving the project for the greenhouse, revamping the greenhouse image, you know, also can help there. I note that one of the issues that were reported from the SIG was even, you know, confusion of that very level and mapping between projects and use cases and that kind of stuff. So I would tend to agree with you Mark that, you know, it's a general problem. It's the difference that I see is that, you know, it's hard to get input from the community at large that we don't know that we would like to attract. But the SIG, they're actually well known, you know, entities, they're, you know, people like Nima today, we can reach out and say, okay, let's engage in discussion and see what would help you. And, you know, at least in having this kind of like feeling in the gap in terms of information sharing so that they're more included and then don't have to struggle feeling like they're in a different world altogether. So I think it's fundamentally the same problem, but we have a, it might be easier to tackle if we focus on the SIG's needs and as, because we can talk to them. And then as a side effect, I think the larger community would benefit from solving the SIG's problems. Right, and I agree with that. That was sort of what I was thinking, but I want people to be cognizant that this is really solving a couple of different issues. Yeah, I think that's a good point. Anybody else? All right. If not, we're done with the agenda per se, but there's plenty of issues that are dangling. And I wanted to highlight that. We've opened quite a few items over the last several calls since the beginning of January, basically. And it feels like we're not making enough progress between calls to be able to close on those items. And I don't blame anyone. I'm as guilty as everybody else, but it'd be good to be able to make progress between calls so that we can start closing on some of those issues and make actual progress because opening issues is only the very beginning. We have to close on them at some point. Not to put you on the spot, Daniel, but I saw you actually updated the badging proposal. Yeah, it was the two things I discussed a week or two ago on changing the resolution to the three step where the middle is discussion and being less formulaic about how the CSC has to do it. And I also went through and I updated, I added the renewability to each of the different badges. And I guess the question I have is I'm not sure what the next step from this is. Do I make this into the formal process? Do I bring this into the CSC? Do we vote on it? Do people still have opinions on it and think it needs to be worked out? So my take on this is that if, you know, now that you've updated it, I want to give people another week to have a look at the updated version and then we can just vote on it. And then once it's voted, you know, we can do the GITA PR for me is more like, you know, just make an equal to get it in the final text. But the decision, we can make it based on the proposal you put together. Arun? Hey, I see we've been joining the call. So maybe we just take a couple of minutes and ask specific questions. Yeah, we've been, okay. Let's make sure we close on the, so anybody else on the badging proposal, if you've all heard me, please have another look. And let's see if you have any other comments, please do so on the wiki. And otherwise I'm going to make it, if it feels like it's stable enough, I'll bring it up next week for as a formal proposal for like a decision by the TSE. Hopefully we can get there. If, of course, if, you know, people have more comments or, you know, not comfortable with the proposal, then we can keep working on it. All right. So I don't see any hands raised. So, yeah. Deepin? Hey, hi, sorry for the confusion. I thought this was like confusion with the time zone. So yeah, sorry for the delay. Sorry, I know what that's like. All right, so Nima to get, I mean, you actually did amazing given the circumstances. He put, he managed to put together a few slides and give us kind of an overview of the activities that you guys have been having in the SIG telecom SIG. And then, you know, since you're now here, is there anything you would like to say specifically? You have some suggestions like that's what we are planning in 2021 is more on like to develop more reference architectures so that this can be used by other telecom operators, right? So I don't know how TSE can help in these kind of things whether or any suggestions that should be approached to more standard bodies like ITC or GSMA or some more and how TSE can help us into outreach to more standard bodies so that we can give more arrays from the SIGs. That's what I understand from like, like if he says in CNC of SIGs, like most of the time they did more focus on architectures, right? Instead of use cases. So 2021, this is the plan as well. Like we are adding this, that can we develop more reference architectures and I don't know how from last two years we are as a SIG we are filling this mentorship programs but not getting and I don't know why, but we are not getting any feedbacks as well. Like you can work on this or something. So if we can get some feedback so that we can improve and again participate in mentorship programs as well that as a SIG that will be also good. And also we want to listen from TSE as well that what do you think that should we change something? Should we add something or any suggestions from you guys? All right, so in terms of way you should do that work. I mean, you mentioned standards that seems quite a Navy process. I think for now, if you guys want to work on some kind of reference architecture based on use cases that you guys are interested in, you can do that. And if you want feedback from the TSE, you're very welcome to prompt us sending an email to the TSE and say, hey guys, look, we're working on this. You know, we'd appreciate some input or feedback if you have any. I mean, the channel communication channel has been weak but it is there and it is open. Anybody can send email to the TSE list or join these calls at any time. And if you want to highlight any work you guys are taking on and want to have the input from the TSE, I invite you to do just that. Thank you. And any suggestions for the mentorship stuff? Yeah, so the mentorship, I mean, this is one of the questions we've talked about in terms of the, you know, in general. Well, we don't have an answer yet, but as I was saying before you joined, we, you know, we've got quite a bit of feedback from the CIGS that Tracy gathered and reported to the TSE that we are going through now to try to see what we can do for each and every one of those issues that were raised and to try to improve the situation. Mm-hmm. Thanks. Thank you so much for the reply. Tracy? Yeah, I had a question about mentorship and I wanted to ensure we were talking about the same thing. Are you talking about the official mentorship program that Hyperledger has? Is that the mentorship that you're talking about? Yeah, yeah. Exactly. So, and then is it that you are putting in projects that you want people to help with and you're not getting responses back from the D's? So last year, yeah, last year, last year, we wrote one solution brief on, and then on integrated settlements and we had some code with us which we contributed to on Hyperledger Labs, but that's what we want to continue with that. So that we need more, let's suppose, students or something. So we wrote one project like as a mentorship, as I said, in mentorship program, but of course, there are a lot of things, but at least if we get some feedbacks, like please improve next time this way so that we can apply next year. So we also applied that next year, but again, the same process. So if we get some feedbacks, like what kind of programs you guys are accepting or something so that we can improve and again apply so that we get at least some programmers or students so that we can continue our solution brief into the real implementation as well. Okay, and I know that the mentorship program is currently looking for projects. I see that there's only one submission so far for the year, so it would be good to have you submit. And then I don't think Min's on the call. Might wanna reach out to Min and see if there's any specific feedback on previous sorts of mentorship years and submissions to see about getting information. Yeah, sure. Yeah, I think that would be a good thing to do indeed to ask if there is any feedback from the staff based on the previous years that could help applicants have a better proposal. But thanks for clarifying, Tracy. That shows that we need to be careful with the terms we throw in. When we start overloading the terms, it quickly gets confusing. We had also talked about mentorship in terms of like getting people from projects involved in different activities, labs and the seeks as more like mentors who could help. And that's what I was, I thought it was about. But so, yeah, it's a bit confusing. So, Arun is next. Yeah, that was the same question which I also had wanted to clarify because our earlier understanding on mentorship was different from what we can just say. And quick comment to VPN also. So if you, I mean, there are other groups within Hyperledger where like for example, there are working groups and there are regional chapters who do organize events. And if you do have a requirement where you want people to solve a specific problem statement, then please do reach out to them as well. And specifically since you are also in India and then we are connected, if you can send me out your requirement and we do have an event hackathon coming up next month, I'm happy to share it across through India chapter. Yeah, sure, I will share. Even last year, we gave one problem statement on my pleasure in India chapter. All right, yeah. Thanks, I'll connect you after the call. Sure. Thanks. All right, thank you Arun for this. Anything else? Have any additional information to share about challenges you had getting that lab set up? I know you just referenced the lab, but I know there were also some challenges you ran into. Yeah, I remember we did this in 2020. So yeah, we want to add Nima as a one of the contributor, but anyhow, we didn't get success and then we quit all these Hyperledger labs kind of things because I remember when we wrote this solution brief for IoT, we did all the coding in our public web was not on Hyperledger labs because of problems we faced last year. So till then we didn't try it even after that, that because of that period because we contributed some code for Hyperledger labs, but again, after that we never went back because of problems we faced. So I don't know, I missed from last one year, I never checked even that whether it's improved or not, but yeah, if it is improved, yeah, we will definitely want to try that. Well, I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience that basically pushed you away or drove you to go do something else. In terms of adding people, normally that's a pretty simple process that Rai is happy to jump on and do quickly. I can only imagine there was a problem of communication, the week was not getting to the right person. In general, we use the labs rocket chat channel and all of us towards and Rai helps with all the repo setup and all on it and pay attention to what's going on there. So if you want to give it another shot, I encourage you to try. My observation, and I know this has come up in Tracy's discussion too, and I had said it earlier, but just now that Vipin's on the call, I'll repeat it. I think it often does come down to relationships. I think when people create a lab and they're known already in the community, when they show up in a place like the labs channel, they can get a response. But I often think when unknown people show up or not as well known people show up, they sometimes do get overlooked sometimes when they ask questions. And I think that might be the issue because I think the people coming from the SIGs are less known in the technical community. So I do think, I mean, I have pointed people to the lab channel, for example, and I think sometimes they do or do not get responses. I would like to think that that's not why, but I don't know, maybe we are guilty of that. I don't know that I know of, but for sure at the proposal level, we get proposals from all sorts of people we don't know. For me, it makes absolutely no difference. The chat channel is often because it's easier. When people know you, they tag you, then it gets to your attention much faster. I think that can play a role, but I don't think there's any intent to ignore people we don't know. I'm speaking for myself, but I'm sure it's true for everyone else, everybody else hot. Yeah, so I wanna agree with David and actually go further. I think this is not just a problem in labs. This is a problem in all of Hyperledger and pretty much all of us are guilty of this to some degree where we sort of respond faster and better to GitHub IDs or people we know. And this is not entirely without merit, it's like, for instance, Arno, if you were to submit a PR to one of our code bases or a code base where I was a maintainer, it is probably likely that it is a higher quality than someone completely random off the street. But this also does discourage contribution and it sort of risks people's attempts to get involved being black hold. But I think this is a much bigger issue than just labs. I mean, I can agree with that because I can agree that I've been complaining at least within the fabric project that the maintainers, sometimes they fall and I don't know that it's intentional but it does feel like there is some collusion going on between maintainers who will quickly review and merge each other's PRs and they tend, they will ignore the others, they're more likely to ignore the others. So there's definitely some of that going on and I think that's something that I for sure have been fighting within the fabric project and I've been saying, hey, you should review the PRs in the order they are submitted first and there may be cases where, well, okay, there's this one that's urgent because there's a bug and you need to fix it, it'll take priority but otherwise it should be first in and first out. And mind you, I have had people say, when I started target stack, are you saying we should take them in the org? I'm like, well, yeah, I was a bit baffled that it was a question for some people. Anyway, we have a bit of track but thank you for that feedback though. Those stats are available in LFX, like it'll show you the average time to merge or review and Dano? Yeah, I will tell you. I just have one thing before we close the meeting and request. Yes, please. So I saw that Aries submitted a request to go active. Will that be discussed in next week's meeting or is it gonna be further down the agenda? Oh, I'm glad you reminded me. I wanted to add that to the announcements and to remind people. If you haven't seen it, Steven posted the announcement on the TSC list and I do request everybody or invite people to go and have a look, you can comment, it's on the wiki and I do expect us to start discussing it next week and I will be formally on the agenda and then I don't know if we'll be in position to make a decision yet. I noticed that I haven't had a chance to look in the details of the application for moving to active status but I noticed there were things that were still under work so maybe it's not completely ready yet but if there's any feedback that you guys have, I encourage you to let them know already so that they can address them without further ado. So thank you, Dano, for bringing that up. All right, so on this, I'm happy to close the call with one minute to spare. So let's call it today. Thank you all for joining.