 started. It's all yours. All right. Hello, everyone. This is the TSC weekly call. If you don't be familiar with the anti-trust policy notice, which is displayed on the screen if you're online. I don't know if we have people on the phone, maybe a couple, but hopefully you're familiar with this. This is a publicly open meeting. Anybody is welcome to listen in or even participate if you feel like it. We merely ask that you are aware of the code of conduct and behave like a decent human being. It always makes me laugh that I have to say that every time, but sadly it's necessary nowadays. All right. So with that being done, let's go on. So first, I only have one announcement or maybe one and a half. The first one is just to highlight what I had already said last week regarding the holidays for the next week. We will not have the TSC call. And so the next call will be on January 9th. So I don't think that should be a surprise to anyone. There is the half announcement I want to also make is that you remember that we decided to extend the size of the TSC. We extended from 11 to 15. And this was pending approval by the board. I'm happy to report that the governing board is actually voting. I think the voting has not officially closed, but everybody has already cast a vote in favor. So I think we'll have that done. I will let you know when it's really officially announced, but no surprises. There's a tidbit that's of interest there is that Brian not really knowing what our plans were, where he actually put in the proposal to the governing board that, you know, we would have the ability to set up an election to do that sooner rather than later. So it's up to us if we wanted, we could hold a special election to fill in the additional seats. I don't expect us to do that. We went through this a little bit when we made the decision. And the consensus was now we'll just wait for the next cycle to add the extra seats. So my expectation is we'll stick to that plan. But so just so you know, I expect that the board will actually allow us to hold a special election if wanted to do that sooner. So with that being said, we have a bunch of quarterly reports. Some came pretty late. I'm not sure we have time. Everybody had the time to go through them all. But let's try to see what we've got. Aries, there were no issue reported. So I don't know if anybody has any questions. I think there was a question from Hart or something. Yeah, thank you. There it is right in front of us. So I don't know if it's important to discuss this now, but it's probably not. It was just a question for the Aries team. Yeah, it wasn't super relevant to the project that was. All right, so let's keep on moving then. We can see how fine that works out. Technical working group China. Since like the working group is doing well, there was one question slash issue brought up. There's a question with regard to China cryptographic standards. Anybody from the China group on the call? I think they joined for the previous call. This was the as I know, and I said, sorry, we'll do it next week. And now there's nobody. Yeah. I thought Jay would be on, but I don't see him. So I think there's a question. Is the question on the wiki somewhere? Because I'm looking at it. Yeah, it's right there. If you look at the zoom window, it's right in front. Oh, it's on the zoom window. Okay. But it's on the wiki. I mean, oh, oh, that they have a question for the TSC. Sorry, misunderstood. Yes, that's what I meant. So and I think I understand what this is about. And I think this issue was brought up before. Are we supporting China cryptographic standards? Didn't that question come up in the context of Ursa specifically? Well, yes, these kinds of questions have come up in the context of Ursa. I mean, essentially, this is just a request for modular cryptographic protocols. Like right now, if you look at a lot of the DLTs, like things like Shah are are baked into many of them pretty deeply. And these guys every time, you know, there's an update, they have to go rip everything out. Dave turned into a question. This ends up turning into a question of which frameworks are intending to support Ursa to a certain extent, because we've added the Chinese crypto support at the Ursula player, haven't you heard? No, we haven't. We haven't completely broken everything down where you can. We don't support modular hashing for everything yet. Ideally, this is this is just a question of modular crypto that like we don't know that necessarily we want to maintain their implementation of stuff, but we should have modular hashing and signatures just out of good design. And if we had this, then then it would make things simple for them. Dave might know more on this. He might have talked to these people more. Yeah, so we can, I mean, I think that's what it's about is they're saying, okay, we want to be able to support China cryptographic standards. So the project should be written in such a way that it's easy for them to have the support. I think that's what it's about or easier. So, right, but people should be clear about where it can actually happen. You're not going to do it for zero knowledge. Right. If you want to replace ECBSA with SM2 and SM4, okay. Right. So, Gary, yeah, all of the standards are for, it's mostly, it's not even really ECDSA mostly. It's hashing and it's symmetric crypto operations. So it's essentially. Well, SM2 and SM4. Trust me, I built security products. Right. Everybody in the world claims they need ghost, SM2, SM4 and whatever. And by the way, I built products that sold hundreds of millions of dollars have never had those and sold in those countries. But I'm with you. I just need to be clear. Right. Because like ghost, you could say ghost, but like CLS doesn't always have it in there. Right. And so I think modular crypto is the answer and people should be able to contribute where it, but you're never going to be able to have standards for like most, like you're not going to be able to do like indie stuff with China standards. Yeah. But I think that's fine, Gary. I think it's still, I think it would be, it's good practice that the TSC could, you know, tell everybody every project, please, we need to keep that in mind and where it makes sense. Make it modular so that people in China can support the standards they want there. That's all. Okay. I think that's all. Yeah. And I ping Dave Huseby so that he can report back on how some of that is going to. So he got a marker on that one too. All right. Thank you. Avalon seems like things are going pretty smoothly. There was no issue reported. I don't know if anybody has any questions. Is Eugene on? He's not on, but I offered two field questions for him. All right. Let's carry on. Then next one is quilt. So they didn't report any issue. Some may have seen the fact that, you know, they report they have had a one zero release. I think we've talked about it before. It has taken some people by surprise because they never asked for approval from the TSC to do that. They just did it and it was, we figured it out eventually. And there was no intent in that. They just didn't realize they were supposed to come to the TSC. Also, they started the entire process right before the vote even took place for some of the different things that were changing. So I think that that kind of added to the confusion. Okay. Is there any comments or questions about this? Otherwise, we can keep on moving. I guess I just have a question on quilt. I mean, maybe this is for like, you know, Dan or anybody else is on there today. I mean, it's supposed to be for, I mean, integrating stuff, but have they ever reached out to any of the other walking projects? So I see David, David fueling is on David. Do you hear me? Hey, I'm here. Hey, thanks for the report. Sure. So Gary, you can ask him. I should have posted it in there. I guess I was just going to, I mean, maybe it has been happening, but the surprise that have you guys been having conversations with any of the other, with any of the blockchain projects on how quilt would fit in? Certainly. Hyperledgers on our radar. So I think quilt has recently just sort of picked back up, at least from my, like me being the maintainer, I'd say in the last five, six months. So I have not, but it's definitely on my radar. We've been mostly focusing on, on like layer one crypto blockchains and fiat. So we haven't really engaged the hyperledger community yet, but would like to. And if you guys know any partners of projects we should like, maybe focus on, that would be actually helpful from my perspective. When quilt joined hyperledger, we had a bunch of conversations with them about integration with Indy. And we've done some things to try to make it to the payment plug-ins and the payment addressing scheme inside of the Indy plug-ins the Soren Foundation maintains will work with hyperledger or with interledgers addressing scheme. So I think there are integration opportunities we haven't taken advantage of yet. And you know, I know that the team that brought interledger in was really open and had a bunch of conversations with the Indy group. I don't know if any of the other frameworks took advantage of that enough. I think too, and maybe even in the last year, we've evolved some of our addressing standards. So the interledger address is still there, but it that would loosely map to what you would imagine like an IP address being. So it's not really human usable. And there's a new standard that has come out of the interledger community called a payment pointer, which loosely maps to something like the DNS for human usability. So I'd love to work more closely with Indy in that regard or anyone else that's interested in that. All right, thank you. I know they were very early on. I remember being asked if we could do an integration fabric. The problem is there's a mismatch in terms of the level because interledger is very payment oriented. Yeah, that's been on my mind at least. Maybe somehow being able to transfer a fungible token, perhaps between maybe even two networks, maybe that would be using the same token, but I'm not sure if that's a real use case. Yeah, I think when fabric gets back to looking at fab token, again, it might be something to pick up. And then other frameworks that are more payments oriented like Eroha might be a better starting point right now. And finally, I'll note, the integration might actually be something that happens not really at the framework layer, at the ledger layer, but more at an application layer. So one other final suggestion might be if there were sample applications for fabric or for any others that involved payments, maybe showing a sample that showed how that might plug in using quilt to other payment rails or something like that could be interesting. Yeah, and just to clarify, it's not like the work on fab token has stopped or it's just not part of 2.0, that's all. Okay, maybe you could connect. All are working on it, but okay. So I think that does it for quilt. And we have one last one that I caught before it was too late. Learning material development working group. Bobby, I have to say, I'm constantly impressed by the amount of energy Bobby is displaying. And I'm a bit saddened that this group is struggling because it doesn't feel fair, given the energy that Bobby is putting into this. Bobby. Well, thank you, but it's not just me. There's a bunch of people that really work hard to try to organize this materials, but thank you. So you've listed a few issues. I don't know that there is much that the TSE can do in this regard. Basically, the membership is just the more we get support from the community, the more members will want to help out. And again, the edX update and the GitHub stuff is just something we work through every week. So there is also, if you scroll down a little bit, there was a planned work product that I wanted to run by the TSE. If you click on that link, this was just after the call last week. You guys were talking about how to organize yourselves and get the documentation in places. So again, our working group would like to take this on and hopefully keep a track record of all the decisions that are made in the documentations once they've been approved. So that's just up for discussion if you want to go forward with that. All right. That's interesting. Thank you. So I saw that there was a comment from Dan. He pointed out that we're waiting for Sinona to come back with the proposal for task force. So that could be something they can take into account. I don't want to speak for Sinona, but she and I were working together with this. Yes, I didn't want to formalize it because we had a calendar snafu this week and Bobby was participating and Grace and some other people, but until we all get together and sign all the dotted line is what everyone's committed to, I didn't want to bring it forward to the TSE. So hopefully after the holidays, we'll be able to bring something back. No, it's totally fine. Thank you. All right. So I think that does it. Unless anybody has any questions for Bobby. No questions, but I think part of what we were talking about last week was trying to get the documents consolidated. So maybe the tracking is still interesting like that calendar on there. So you can see when things got decided, but having everything consolidated into one place, that was my recollection of one of the main objectives that that task force would take on. Yes, I agree. All right, let's move on. So I highlighted two proposals that I think we should be able to make a decision on based on my reading of the group as of last week. So let me go back to the agenda decisions for go the project life cycle incubation state. So we had discussions, but it seemed pretty easy. You know, most people either were silent or felt very strongly that we shouldn't do that. So I would like to simply propose that we reject that proposal and we just keep incubation in a project life cycle. If anyone would like to call that for a vote. So I am calling it. So we're voting affirmatively against a negative resolution on the. I mean, you know, that's exactly right. I want the outcome to be rejected. I mean, to be that the proposal is rejected. Okay. So the proposal is to reject the proposal to reject the incubation state. To forgo the incubation state. Don't make it worse than it is. We need to have proposals that. I mean, I don't know that we need to. So I know what you're going. I mean, if we do nothing, nothing changes and this is the way it is. But I think it's actually important, given that the question was raised that, you know, this and you raised it. Can we, can we, yeah, but can we say the proposal is something like the TSC, you know, visited the, you know, right in the meeting notes that the TSC looked at the project life cycle and decided to keep the incubation state. So just more of like a keeping track of our thoughts rather than like rejecting a proposal. So why don't, okay. So the proposal is to remove the incubation state from the project life cycle. So we're taking a vote on removing the incubation state from the project life cycle. Everybody should just vote no, if that's what they want, in other words, if they want to keep it, then they should just vote no. That's right. And so that's what, now what I know is proposing is that he's proposing that that's what we do. But what he's really doing is he's proposing that we take a vote. So we should just take a vote. And if you want to get rid of incubation, we say no. If you want to keep incubation, I'm sorry, if you want to keep incubation, you say no. If you want to remove it, you say yes. So just, just vote, come on. It's silly. Exactly, I'm just trying to get it out and that we can, I mean, it's, I think it's still important to have a record of that. It's the outcome of the decision. Yeah, right. But the proposal is to remove the incubation state and we're voting on that proposal. Is that what I think we should be doing? That's what we should be saying. I guess I agree. So if that's what you're doing, then I second it. Okay, so we'll take it creases away. The proposal is to forego the incubation state. So I'm just going to update the agenda so that's not confusing. Okay, fine. Actually, can you update in notes or on the actual decision log piece for me, Dan? Well, I think the decision log is correct. Right? Okay. Yes, the decision log doesn't change. It's the, what we vote on is actually what's in the decision log and. Right. So just change the minutes to say proposal for go the, you know. Well, what I put down is I put there's a call to vote by Arno and then I said yes to remove no to keep Chris Ferris and then I was going to record the votes from there. No, no, that's okay. Let's, let's try and keep it. So we're going to keep these out? This is. Dude, y'all are confusing. This is definitely an Oxford comma missing somewhere. When we not spend 15 minutes discussing what this is about, the proposal is to forego the incubation state and the project life cycle. I second that. So second that. So anybody in favor stays the I. I. Okay. We have one vote for it. I against it. No. I myself to that least but there's a lot of people who stay silent. Anybody who wants to be listed as abstaining. I'm sorry. Am I on mute? I don't know. I'm voting to keep incubation. Whichever one that's supposed to be. Yeah, that's a no. Okay. So let's be clear. We only had one vote in favor of removing incubation that was halt. Anybody else voted against it? Is that correct? Okay. So I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time. We had a bunch of no's but I didn't hear any abstains and there were. Okay. All right. All right. All right. This is a roll call vote. We're going to do a roll call vote. Here we go. Or no, what is your vote? I reject the proposal. Chris. No. Stan. No. Gary. No. Hart. Yes. Nathan. No. Swetham. No. Tracy. No. All right. There we go. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. That's the thing I thought we would do one more call and that's it. Let's move on. It's been rejected therefore. So they were also discussion about the community diversity matrix. And we, I think, you know, I'm not going to remind you what's in the in the document. The executory for incubation. It defines it. And there is this aspect which, you know, we've discussed at length where the, you know, that it is somewhat subjective. And, but, you know, we have been going back and forth. And in the end, I feel like there was no consensus to change anything. So I'm proposing we just keep it as it is defined. And I will remind people that Chris rightfully pointed out it's not an ERC Apache. The Apache software foundation has something extremely similar to this. So it's not like it's not been done before. So that's the proposal. I don't see a written proposal, though. It's just to keep the existing metric as currently defined. It's in the agenda. Where do we have the project incubation? Right there. There's a Yep. Right. There's a project lifecycle document that defines the criteria. So the proposal here is to can you say it like with no commas or anything? I said the proposal is to keep the existing metric as currently defined in the project incubation exit criteria. Okay. So people should vote yes for stasis, right? Or no for something more dynamic. Okay. Should I just go ahead and type that into the proposal page? So it is explicit. It's fine. Let's do this, please. I second it. If that's what was waiting, Chris. Okay. Thanks. So our no. Yes. Chris. Yep. Dan. Writing the official proposal language. Reload. Dan abstains. Gary. Dan is busy writing the proposal. Give me a break. You can't, never mind. I'm chewing gum also. That was good to say something, yeah. He's good to work on a break. Everybody needs it. What am I voting on here? I mean, I get this stuff. Yes means I think we should keep it as it is. Yes. I'll vote keep it as it is. Okay. So Dan, how do you vote yes? Yes. You can reload the page. You can see what I'm saying yes too. Yes. It's Nathan. And Jameson and Peter. Nathan. Sveta. Nathan, I had an obvious problem. Okay. Nathan, your vote is? I missed what the vote was. Oh, no. Keep the executive for incubation the same as they are today regarding the diversity aspect. Or change it as outlined in the proposal. No, the proposal is to leave things be. Then I vote yes. Sveta. Yes. Tracy. Yes. Oh, finally. Let the record show that the motion finally passed. A lot more painful than I anticipated. All right. So you might remember there was, there were three issues that I raised last week. But the last one has to do with the first major release. And so I'm migrating to tablet for now. Discussion brought up an interesting proposal. I think it was Gary first brought it up is like maybe we would be better off untying this notion of first major release from this notion that the hyper major stuff is spending quite a bit of energy into the promotion of this release. And it's not just the promotion, there's the promotion aspect, but there's also the security audits and so on. So he suggested to, we call this promoted release. And so I actually put a, I raised this issue as a proposal. And I'm not calling for a vote yet. But I wanted to discuss this a bit further because I think it has quite a bit of potential. And in particular, I mean, Tracy actually commented to the proposal saying, well, would we then remove this notion of first major release? And I think there was a big advantage to this, which would be that we have this case that like in Bezu for instance, where they have had several major releases before. And then there was this question, well, is the first major release a one zero? And we said, well, maybe not. But then things become really confusing because what we call first major release is not a one zero. And so if we forgo the whole first major release thing that we don't need to rely on for the purpose of our process, I think it actually simplifies things. All right. And I think, I think Dana also brought up the point that what if all you're doing is making an API change and then per the Sember criteria, that means you have to change it to a X dot zero release, which is quote unquote a major release and Sember parlance. And that's not really what we want. And so it's yeah, I think I think the proposal then is that we're working towards is that instead of calling it the first major release that we call it the first promoted release or something into that effect. And it takes on the meaning that I think because I wrote the damn charters and stuff like that. So I think it takes on the meaning the intent that we had, which was it would be the first one that hyperledger expends any effort in promoting. That's right. So I think it does quite some merit. And I just wanted to bring it up because I thought this is an interesting idea. And again, I mean, this is Dave Hughes. I want to jump in and say I really appreciate this clarity because getting security audits done with the major releases hasn't really lined up. We've done already two or three. I think three that were X zero releases. So I think this is going to reflect reality a lot more and make things easier on everybody's expectations. And there's, of course, there's a side note to this, which is that, you know, we have today as a criteria to be able to do a first major release was that you have to be in active status. And I believe that we would we might still want to say this is the case for promoted release, or first promoted release, but then this would not apply for a major release. So projects like, you know, Explorer for one could definitely have a major release and they do as well could have a major release. And, you know, none of this would be tied to being in active status, which I think would relieve a little bit the pressure that projects and the TSE and everybody as a result, you know, on this moving to active status sooner rather than later. Well, except that again, I think we're just renaming now. Okay, we just say that this is renaming first major release to first promoted release. And then we still have all the criteria that we need in place and we're not just doing everything. Right. So I agree with that. I do question though, whether we want it to be first promoted release or promoted release, do we expect that when we hit 2.0 for fabric? Right. Is that going to be also a promoted release that has a security scan that has all of the criteria that we had with the one that oh, I think that's a yes. Right. That we would want that, which to me then says it's just promoted releases. Right. I, I am, I agree with Tracy again, because it's not just the first one. You know, we talked about this. We did the security scans on 1.4. And the reason for that was because it was a major release. There was an awful lot of stuff and it just didn't have the breaking chains that needed a 2.0. And we knew we were coming up with a 2.0. And so we said, can we do a security scan on that since it was long term support? And so, you know, again, something like LTS, I think merits promotion. And so also merits the, you know, give me a security scan, give me some, you know, press and coverage and all that other stuff. But I do think that the point that Tracy's making is we're not really changing anything. We're just renaming this thing. Although again, I think that the first piece of it is really changing a process because we do want to have the attended things happen if, you know, somebody comes up with another major one, you know, other long term support or whatever. But it also brings forward that you really want to have. I think we don't want to necessarily expand a bunch of resources because a project says, oh, it's another major release three weeks after they just done another one, so they get a lot of press. Probably, or a lot of, you know, things. We probably want to have it, you know, somewhat scrutinized and I don't know, Brian, I mean, I don't know what we can do from a, from a, you know, limiting perspective. But Chris, I thought there's a requirement to actually have this approved by the TSC. Yes. So yeah. Right. But I, again, I think it just brings to bear, you know, we don't want every, just time every now is a breaking change that it, it gets a whole lot of promotion. Yeah. But so that's the point. No, no, I understand. I understand you're getting rid of first is what Tracy's proposing. And I agree with that, but I also think that it just brings with it that, well, that means we have to give it a little bit of thought and we have to agree. Yeah, this, this merits promotion, which includes the securities can and all the things that we have TSC approval for the first major release. And then I just put a link into chat for what we decided in September, what the criteria was for subsequent releases. Yes. So there might, based on what Chris is saying, maybe there's an additional proposal here that we update the criteria for subsequent promoted releases such that they have to also come. No, actually, maybe the way this is worded, they have to fulfill the same requirements as for first major release, which does imply that they have to come in for TSC approval. I think Chris and Tracy were saying that maybe we could have, correct me if I'm wrong here, guys, but the question was about multiple promoted releases. Yes. That's what I was suggesting. Yeah. So I agree with Tracy here that I'm fine with projects having multiple promoted releases as long as the TSC approves. And I'm totally okay with switching the name to promoted release. So projects like BESU or projects that already have gone above 1.0 and the numbering system not have to change their numbers. So I think this makes a lot of sense. And I think we need to also probably coordinate with the marketing committee. It was interesting. I read over a bunch of the Apache documents over the last week and sort of the way they handle marketing for, for say like incubated projects is much more restrictive. So I think we should we should have some discussion with the marketing committee about how projects are marketed and if we, if we change this promoted release thing I think that would be a good opportunity. Sorry for the monologue. No, no, it's good. Thank you all. I mean I don't know that Apache does much marketing overall but I wanted to get back to Dan's point though because I have to admit that this the thought of just renaming first major release to promoted release came through my mind too but I just I couldn't and you know I've been traveling a lot across multiple times also maybe it wasn't the best time for me to get clear mind on that and I couldn't quite follow through completely in my mind on the impossible implication and whether I was comfortable with just taking that shortcut but maybe it is the right thing to do is just to so-called rename it. It was just safer for me to introduce something new and then we can look at the major release and say well we don't really need this anymore so we just remove it which is equivalent but like I said so if I mean Dan have you thought through this all the way and convince yourself that this is the same? Yeah, I also convinced myself that we run the risk of continually reopening these life cycle questions that we had closed off like this one is like September 5th so I think it's always easy to go back to topics that we feel familiar with because they're easy for us to delve into more and more detail but kind of like how we would handle sprints in our software projects we get something to the state that we can get it into within a reasonable amount of time and then we need to move on to new features or new topics But we're still refining this I don't feel like we're quite re-ashing the same question here Dan, I agree with you but I think the BESU process brought up a lot of new points that you know at least for me were not obvious before So any other way there are some people who haven't heard of from and so I'd like to hear from more people how do they feel about this I don't think we necessarily need to make a decision now I did not expect this is why I put this as a discussion item but I feel like you know maybe we have to think a bit more through this and figure out what the exact proposal ought to be Well you know again I think some of this stuff did come to light afterwards I don't think that I mean while I do agree that decisions you know are final that if new information comes in and I think Dano made some salient points I think others did as well and we ought to take that under consideration and I think this is a good example where okay so we're still calling it a major release but that sort of conflicts with the realities of you know when you're dealing with a project and you have to make a breaking change do you want that to be a major release or is it just a breaking change now it could be that they're a coincident right that going to a breaking change requires some promotion to help people understand what's going on but it could also be the case that like we had with 1.4 of fabric that you have a major release because you're doing something like declaring long-term support for an existing you know or you know newly published release and you want to raise awareness of that as well and so you have to seek permission and so forth and you probably want to go through all the processes so I'm I think it's probably a good thing that we're changing it from major release to promoted release and that we already have decided that it's not just first it's all of them right that apply the criteria and I but I also think that you know we shouldn't be at too prescriptive of what you know the criteria is for a promoted release it should just be you know kind of like you know judge whatever it was who says I can't tell you what the definition of obscenity is but I know it when I see it and so I think that that's what we have to sort of do here is say from a promoted release perspective that the team that wants to promote their release needs to come forward the reasonable justification and we decide I want to jump in and say I totally agree with Chris here on technical and security grounds 1.4 definitely deserved a security release all right sorry a security audit and we also have the Oroha project coming up getting a refresh on their security audit even though they don't have any breaking changes they have significant rework of the cryptographic capabilities in their platform so it doesn't warrant a 2.0 but there's enough changes in the critical the safety critical stuff the security critical stuff that it deserves more scrutiny on a security audit and security audits are expensive and I would like the guidance from the TSC basically if we tie these to promoted releases tie the security audits to promoted releases then I will get the guidance from the TSC that that would make my job easier and make me more comfortable spending the hyper-religion money on these so I think Chris is entirely right and I think this change is a good one all right thank you anyone else Sueta Tracy been silent I don't know if I have much more to add I think Chris kind of summarized what my thoughts were as well I think I definitely like the idea of removing first major release from the promotion aspect of it it also makes let's projects make some more you know decisions that make sense for them right as you said I think removing it from Sembar is a pretty good proposal and decision in my opinion all right thanks I would like to add I also think this is a good idea and most the projects are putting in their quarterly reports what releases are coming up as well as what releases they already did and so you know I'm not really worried with a project going off the rails and doing something really crazy with their version numbers because everyone's already practicing Sembar and I think doing a pretty responsible job of how they're versioning their project as a whole and so this allows the TSE to focus on just the things that will spend resources or need for more broad promotion and let the maintainers have the trust that they've already done a pretty good job with in terms of the day-to-day managing a version numbers all right thank you okay it seems like everybody seems to be in agreement that is a good move I don't know do we want to vote and just replace major release by promoted release so we would also be allowing multiple promoted releases right yeah if we do doesn't change that yeah it doesn't change that it's basically until you're at this stage you can that you can't ask for any promoted releases I don't think we're saying you have to go through the same process every time for a promoted release are we that's the existing yeah verbiage yeah yes see I think it is that that implies that Gary what you think isn't that again I think there they can be coincident I just yeah you can change your version number and republish things without going through this process this process yes you want to put some money behind it so right I mean I think I can't remember you know who it was it brought it up but explorer they wanted to go to 1.0 but they're not active and it may not be necessary for promotion but it does signal to the community hey this is ready for prime time and that's okay you know that's okay and that would be good you know all right let's try it then I'm proposing to replace first major release by promoted releases second oh well let's so I know I actually think we need to have specific language that says what we mean right I think we all on this call know what we mean but we're gonna go off and have a bunch of grog or you know whatever you know in the next week or so and we probably want to write down what we mean I know but I yeah I agree this is why I didn't really want to propose it but now it sounds like everybody's in agreement I'm like maybe you should seize the opportunity that's why you're the chair or no you're a wise man okay so basically you're just replacing the word yeah the words first major release with promoted release no but I was proposing that actually let's forgo it's not vote yet I'll come I'll write down what I you know I'll capture from here write it down send it out and also on an email and make sure everybody's in agreement what we mean by promoted release what it what it entails okay sounds good I'll take Chris's offer yeah Chris take a look at the chat oh absolutely yeah yeah yeah no I what I'll do is I'll propose the set of changes so yeah cool thank you Chris yeah all right so that marks the end of the official agenda there was a question in chat um dano if you want to if you think this is a good form for it yeah so um in the exit criteria it mentions committers and it's mentioned nowhere else in any governing document a lot of committers I think that's a copy over from the patchy docs back in the day when they were using subversion rather than github and now with github you can be a committer and not be the more emerging it in so I'd like some clarification of does that map to contributor does it map to maintainer I don't care which I think we should be clear about it yeah it was it's probably supposed to be maintainer yeah yeah it was the term we used in the in the charter so the the decision that you're requesting is that that that word is replaced with the word maintainer sure maintainer contributor pick one I don't care yep no I'll uh dano thanks for pointing that out I'll update it in the proposal change so dano I'm sorry I didn't see that the question we raised that was in zoom okay it was in rocket chat seems disabled I used my superpowers to send him a message and I sent you a message as well oh so it wasn't in the tsc chat no it is it is how come I don't see it I don't see it can we get clarification it's it's 7 33 a.m well on my time right yeah I saw it's there it's there for me anyway I don't know well okay okay there's so scroll back there's one question with like three thumbs up oh yes can we get clarification on what role commuter maps to okay thank you okay is there any disagreement and what's implied there I think we definitely meant maintainer but where is the instance in which we have commuter it's in the correct area I think yes for uh release I'll uh I'll fix it or in in the proposal I'll fix it wait that's a different thing though isn't it yes wait hold on we wanted to be really crazy if we could put together one proposal that says replace these fix this stuff here well we'll eventually it'll all be in the same document right but we just aren't there yet I think examples like this are why we need the task force portion is because this is more of a typo than it is a policy um yeah yeah yeah well okay I will I will put together a proposal that includes this and the other you put it on an action item yeah it looks like we just copied this straight from Apache so okay thanks for bringing that out it's good too good all right anything else so just quickly I mean uh Chris is there any date on your task force for the uh no sorry no I have to uh I have to get that back but I'm not going to do that until next year yeah I know I figure so nothing really happened no no no I became a great father and I had a few but it's fine I'm not I'm not blaming you I just wanted to know there was something I didn't know about okay okay we have two minutes left but I'm happy to close early so it seems like everybody needs a break anyway so I'm going to thank you all for joining today thank you for working together this year I look forward to next year in the meantime enjoy the holidays I sure will try to do that and I'll toss in that uh uh hyperliterous fourth birthday just passed earlier this week so yes good news to that happy right yeah if you haven't read the report go read it it's pretty awesome I think Jessica did a great job on it yeah it's fun right very good meeting is adjourned