 All right, everyone, welcome to the December 14th Hyperledger Technical Oversight Committee call. As you may or may not be aware, there are two things that we have to abide by on this call. The first is our antitrust policy notice. So there are obviously members of different organizations on this call. So we need to make sure that we are not participating in any activities that are prohibited under any of the antitrust and compensation laws across the world. The second thing that we have to abide by is our Code of Conduct, which is linked in the agenda. Basically, it says to be respectful of others, their ideas and opinions on the call, and to act in a professional manner. With that, we have two announcements. The standard one of the Hyperledger Dev Weekly Developer newsletter that goes out each Friday. If you would like to include anything in that newsletter, please do consider leaving a comment for consideration in the link that is in the agenda. And then the second announcement that we have is that this is our last POC meeting of the year. We will not be meeting on the 21st, the 28th, or January 4th. We will be, obviously, if I can add correctly, I guess that would mean we would be meeting on January 11th as our first POC meeting of 2024 with the new POC members being part of that. Any other announcements that anybody would like to make? I guess I will say that this is going to be my last call. I am going to officially retire from Hyperledger at the end of the year. So it's been quite a run. I've been involved in Hyperledger since the very launch. And I've been on the TSC and TOC throughout all these years. And it's time for me to move on. Thanks, Ardo. We appreciate everything that you've done for Hyperledger in your run, in the time that it's been going. I appreciate all the leadership and the expertise that you have brought to the conversations that we've had. And I will definitely, for one, be missing you in the upcoming meetings. But we understand that there are other things that may have caught your attention. And we wish you, obviously, well in those endeavors. And yeah, I'm just sad that you had to make that announcement right now. I understand. And it's always a bit sweet. Those moments is a bit like, oh, well. But it's definitely a big page in my life. Hyperledger was a big thing. So it's not without some emotion that I'm announcing it. But that's how it is. I wish you all good luck. Great. Well, you still have 55 minutes to hang out with us. Yes. Keep us honest with what we're doing here. Absolutely. All right, thanks, Arno. Anything else, any other announcements that anybody would like to make? I see it's Connor here. I guess this is my first meeting as an incoming TOC member. But I don't know if it would come under the announcements or an agenda item, it's just to discuss Web 3J in terms of I'd like to submit a pull request in the coming days to propose an incubation within Hyperledger. And it's something that I'd hope over the coming weeks in the next meeting could just have a chance for the TOC members to have a read over so we could have it as a formal discussion for it in the kickoff meeting in January. Great. That is perfect. Thank you, Connor. Yeah, I look forward to getting that out to all of the TOC members for their review. I've had a sneak preview and I'm very thrilled and happy that that is coming in. So we will definitely make sure to include that as a formal agenda item in the new year. Wonderful. Okay, I'll get the submission made and then I'll circulate that just with the TOC members once it's done and then we can talk about it in the new year. Thank you. Yeah, that's great. And welcome, Connor, to the first TOC product you're joining us. I appreciate you being here. You can hopefully see how we run things and get a feel for it before you. I truly jump in at the new year. Definitely and please to meet those of you who I've not met before. I know there's some faces that I have spoken to a number of times over the years. Thank you. Yep. Any other announcements that anybody would like to make? Nope, okay. So for quarterly reports, I saw the Basie report come in. I think the Cello report came in as well, although for some reason I did not get a notification to my email like I typically do when PRs come into the TOC. So definitely have a look and see if there's the Cello report out there for you to review if you haven't had a chance to look at that yet. But any questions on the on the Basie report or the Cello report that we should be talking about? So then as far as past year reports, we do have the Trends Act report. We kind of left this question here just to figure out based on our simplify the project lifecycle, what's going to happen. We also have the Caliper and Firefly report that are due. So we'll probably be sending a reminder to those folks and letting them know that we're expecting a report to come in. So for upcoming reports, we do have the annual review reports that are starting for Q1 of next year with cat die and fabric that are expected to be coming in for the very first meeting that we have in 2024. One of the things that we decided when we put together the annual review process is that we needed a primary and a secondary TOC member to be responsible for taking a look at the health and status of these projects to make sure that they don't need to change the lifecycle stage that they're in. One of the other constraints of that is that the person or people who are already maintainers of those projects cannot be the primary or secondary of those annual reviews. So at this point, I guess I would like to see if we can get two volunteers for cat die and two volunteers for fabric to be the TOC representatives that will be reviewing those and having a deeper look at those reports. Steven? Not to volunteer but could we do a poll where or a, yeah, a poll basically that says here's the two that I would like to do or here are the ones that I wanna do so that we could see if voluntarily we can figure across the year which ones people take as opposed to one at a time so we can assign them over the entire year. I didn't realize two were coming so soon. I know I would have put the agenda together. I was like, oh, shoot, that's gonna be our first meeting. Yeah, we could definitely do that to pull everybody and see which are their top two or also maybe to find out which ones that they shouldn't be involved in to make sure that we don't. Yeah, good idea. And then people can maybe do horse trading after that to figure out who does which one exactly. Okay. What I propose we do and I'll set this up if you want is I'll just create GitHub issues for each project and then the talk members can comment on those issues as they wish. That's why I propose. Sounds great, right. I appreciate that. So it sounds good, Steven? Sure. Okay. And see, I thought you raised your hand so quickly because you really wanted one of those too. So, okay, let's do that. And then I will be back for a week before our next meeting. So hopefully you guys can maybe potentially answer or take a look at those and then maybe I can assign somebody and be the bad guy, probably signing people. All right, sounds like plan. Life cycle simplification. All right, so last time we talked about this was most of the meeting. So I do wanna limit the timeframe because I do wanna get to the retrospective today. So let's say that we have no more than 25 minutes to talk about this. All right, so after the last meeting, what I did was I put together a bunch of drawings, a bunch of options in this PR that you can see. I have, actually they're in the conversation thread, right, sorry, basically trying to take all the options that we talked about the last time and putting together pictures, starting with our newest version, putting together an option for being able to move back and forth between incubation plus also being able to enter directly into graduate it. That's option two. I did also redraw that option, Ramam based on your comment this morning, but that's lower and we'll take a look at that. Option three is having a pre-archive state. So this is basically Arnold's version plus adding this pre-archive state in here. So we're not going straight to archived. Option four is basically option two plus the pre-archive state. Option five is my radical choice where we don't have incubation and graduate it, we just have a project. And then obviously the idea behind option five is that we would implement some sort of badges. So if you keep scrolling right, there's a few more options. Option six was the basically Arnold's version with the ability to go back to incubation from graduate it. Option seven is adding the pre-archive state plus the ability to go between incubation and graduate it or back from graduate at the incubation. If we scroll a bit more, I think is at the very bottom probably is Ramayu asked if we could do this sort of drawing, which is basically option two, but instead of incubation and graduate it being right next to each other, it's incubation followed by graduate it. So it's really no different than option two, but maybe a bit clearer to read. So with that, we've had a lot of discussions about the pre-archive state, what do we call it? Is it dormant? Is it inactive as well as should we have that pre-archive state? But we've also had some conversation in the PR about whether or not we want a proposal to be able to go straight to graduate it or if we think that it's just as good to follow into incubation as an initial step and then a quick move to graduate it similar to what PACEU did. And so, yeah, I guess these are our options. Let's discuss Bobby. I personally like option two. I think it is clear. It's easy to teach, it's easy to understand. And again, that pre-archive state, if it's apparently easy to move back into, I think it shouldn't be a problem to have a pre-archived. You just archive if you wanna come back because you're interested in reviving it. You come back in incubation or graduation depending on when you left or the state of the project when you left. Okay, thanks Bobby. Rama. If we can go back from the pre-archive state to the graduated state, then I'm not sure if there's a clear semantic difference between incubation and pre-archive. That just means that there's stages of the project which are strictly lesser than graduated but the project isn't yet completely defund. So I don't know if we need an extra state but just an extra arrow, a back arrow to five. Okay, thanks, Rama. Jim? Yeah, I think I feel like the main difference between one and two, one being our notes version is you can go from incubation directly to archive. I feel like that's a useful option to have. So I would go for option one. Okay, Stephen. As I've mentioned in the notes, I'm a fan of a dormant state at the end to get the message out of the state of a project. I don't think sending it back to incubation is the same as dormant. I think that's a very different message to the community and so I am still a fan of pre-archived or definitely something other than pre-archived but a state before archived. Okay, Arnaud. So I think it might be more productive to separate those questions because we know that in those options there are different questions being tackled, right? So there is whether we want to allow within option I guess two and four, which we see right now, there's notion of can we go back from graduated status to incubation? That's one thing. Whether we have a pre-archive kind of states dormant or whatever we call it is another question that I think we should try to answer independently of which option we choose because that will help us narrow down the number of functions we're looking at. Okay, right now I feel like based on everything I've heard option seven is probably gonna be the one that's going to meet the majority of people's ideals but that's just based on what I'm hearing so far. David. I guess I am agreeing with Stephen's comments about the pre-archive state. I think it's important to give that signal to the community that something is winding down and I do agree that's different than incubation. So incubation is winding up whereas a pre-archive state is winding down whether we call that dormant or inactive I don't really care, I suggest a dormant but I can go either way. I thought dormant might be nice because it would have some consistency with the current life cycle. And the reason I think it's important to have this pre-archive state is because you might want to do some things in that wind down phase that might be a set of PRs that come in around transition plans or deprecation plans that might not, you know, it might take a couple months or weeks or months to get all those thoughts put into the project. Also there could be things like third party dependency vulnerabilities that pop up in that timeframe that people might want to fix. So even though a project isn't actively being developed people still might want to fix things that get broken over time. And I think that dormant state is a good way to kind of wind things down in a graceful way. All right, thank you, Mark. Hey, just a quick question. So in all of these diagrams there are arrows from say archived and pre-archived to incubation. Is this going to be like just the normal process or is there going to be a different process from going from archived to pre-archived to incubation? You know, and if it's just the normal process then this should probably be going back to a proposal rather than to the incubation state itself. Yep, makes sense, Hart. Yeah, I think we obviously need something to kick off the going back from pre-archived to incubation and that would be a proposal of some sort, right? I don't know if it's a big formal proposal or just a TSE. It's probably potentially could be a formal one or a semi informal one, I guess. Yeah, I mean, my intuition was that you'd have to go through the regular process, but you know, obviously wouldn't necessarily have to. Okay, Rahma. I get what Dave and Steven are talking about distinguishing a pre-archived state from an incubation state, but in that case, in option seven, what does the back arrow from graduated incubation mean? Should there not just be a straight progress from incubation to graduated to pre-archived and then back to incubation if necessary? So I think the reason for this back arrow that we have from graduated to incubation is with the annual review process we have talked about potentially, well, the idea behind the annual review process and what the governing board was looking for was the ability to make sure that a project was in the correct state. So basically, in my mind, what that means is when we do an annual review, if a project is graduated, we have a decision to make and that decision is, does it stay in graduated? It doesn't move back to incubation or does it move to pre-archived or dormant state, whatever we'll call you. And those are the options that we have to make in that particular situation. For a project that is in incubation, the decision we have to make is, should it stay in incubation, should it graduate or should it move to a dormant state? And those are the sorts of things that we should be looking at as we do these annual reviews to ensure that they are in the correct state or stage of our life cycle. And so that's the idea behind that back arrow. No, I get that. Just based on what Dave was talking about earlier, a project once been incubated and went to graduated, it doesn't, does it actually make sense for it to go back to incubation? Because you can only incubate once, right? Or I don't know, maybe I'm just, maybe I'm taking these words too literally. Yeah, I mean, I do think that we've got, you know, part of our problem too is the things that we're using for these stages. And Steven, I'm gonna skip you for a moment. Hart, you probably wanna comment on the name, right? Yeah, I just exactly, I put it in chat. I mean, Raul, we can definitely change the names if we want. Like the OWF has almost exactly the same project life cycle, but they call their statuses growth and impact. And this doesn't have necessarily like the final as, you know, it doesn't have the sort of finalized implications that incubation and graduation have, right? A project could go from being an impact project back into a growth stage or something, right? Yeah, I think there's a more time neutral terms, yeah. So yeah, I guess just don't, I wouldn't get hung up on the names. We can always change them. All right, great, Steven? I was just gonna throw out, and this is Myer, but everything requires a proposal to move between states. So I don't think we need to move. I think it would be confusing to move pre-archive to incubation or to proposal. Everything requires a discussion to transition. So I think we can leave off that detail. Yeah, that's all. Okay, on that comment, Rye, if you could do a refresh, I don't know if it automatically shows up at the bottom, but I just did add that view that Hartnett suggested for, yeah, moving from pre-archive to proposal. So it does make it a little uglier, but yeah. So that's option seven, which is pre-archive to proposal. That's the only difference. Arno? Yeah, so I think that's reasonable, but so two things. First, I agree with what David was saying earlier, that I think if we have this pre-archive, might as well stick with the existing name dormant rather than just change. But beside that, my whole point with the change from end of life to archive was to allow to get back out of this archive mode. And now it seems like this is a dead end, just like end of life. I feel, and I'm not a voting TOC member, I'm not a TOC member at all, but I feel that if you are archived, or pre-archived, it would be a new proposal where you would need to make your case, right? So I think there's kind of an implied arrow there. If you were archived, if someone came in and wanted to get Ursa going again, you know, they would need to make a proposal. But that's my feeling. Yeah. Yeah. Stephen. Shoot, I got hung up on what Roger said. Oh, Arno, an end state no matter what you call it. So archived, and particularly because the first thing we do when we archive something is we put it into the repose into archive state, which really sends a message. That's my point of why we need something ahead of that. So that there is both the opportunity to revive something and the opportunity to do something ahead of the ending of it. And again, I'm colored by the Ursa event and what happened with it and what scrambling it meant. And maybe it's different from others because Ursa had connections to other projects. And so the impact affected other projects. So maybe that's too much influence there on me. But that's why I think it's important is for having that. It's not dead yet. Maybe we call it life support. It's funny that you just changed that to life support because I mean, that's kind of what deprecated was supposed to be the ability to hang on for another six months before it actually reached into life. But yeah, interesting. Yeah, Tracy. So following Gries suggestion, and I think someone else's suggestion, maybe we note that every arrow requires a proposal and we just get rid of the proposal state in the diagram. That might simplify things and it might help us just reach convergence. Okay, Jim. Yeah, I guess I'm still struggling with the pre-archive, especially given Arnold's comment that archived it also supposed to be revivable back to the beginning. I feel like we are here using very logical thinking through this, right? But when you deal with a community, I think we need to assume that the community needs like 100% more extra signal to make a move compared to a logical, rational individual. I'm leaning towards like using archive to send a very strong signal to say that if you depend on something and you want something, you better do something about it because it's archived. Nobody is going to do anything about it until you step up. Putting something in pre-archived, I think the community will still just wait just like before. Nobody is going to do much with it. And yeah, so that's the point. I just feel like pre-archive is no better than incubation. It doesn't send a strong enough signal. Dave. I do think pre-archive sends a pretty strong signal, especially if you call it something like dormant. And I think of it as a transition period to end of life or archived or whatever you want to call the last one. So if people are using a project, they might want a little heads up that this thing is going to go away. And there might be some transition plans needed, whether that's in the documentation, or maybe you have to do a couple minor pull requests to ease the transition somehow. I think most projects will need this small transition period before they go archive. Archive literally means zero pull requests are allowed against it. And I don't think we want to archive something and then say, oh, please unarchive this. I want to do one more final PR. I think that's a little bit silly. So that's why I like this pre-archived dormant state. All right. I changed it to dormant in my picture so that we, because that seems to be what people, Rama. I think what Arno was saying earlier and what he said in the last meeting was he wanted to wait for an archived project to get back on track. So I think Arno correct me if I'm wrong, but you would like an arrow, maybe a dashed arrow from archive back to incubation, right? Why a proposal? And then it goes through the cycle again. That's what, yes. That's what I did mine. In which case, I don't know if you need an arrow from dormant to incubation. Maybe should we have an arrow from dormant back to graduated or do people feel that you always have to go to incubation before going to graduate? I would think that anything that went from it should never return to graduation. Just given the fact that it's probably a new set of people who are coming in and taking off. And now obviously they can move quickly to graduation, right? Just like if you start a project in incubation, you can move quickly to graduate it. But yeah, I would be very hesitant to say something and go straight back to graduate it, especially when you send people. Okay. I don't have a strong feeling about that, but I was just thinking if a project has been marked as dormant because of maintenance and activity, and let's say they get the message and they get back and they start meeting the project actively after that, then the project still retains the attributes of a graduated state, right? Can you say that again? I was saying that if the change of a project state from graduated to dormant, let's say it has the desired effect and the maintainers then get that act together and they start to maintain the project the way they were doing earlier before the project change became dormant, then that by definition doesn't the project retain the attributes of a graduate project? Does it need to go back to incubation necessarily? Oh, I mean, I think they would hit dormant then they come back and start maintaining it again that would move it back to incubation. And then when sir, at the same level they were, then they can have to go to graduate. Okay, sure. I think that works for me. Yeah, I have no strong position to that. So I think it would be clear to add an hour to this diagram from archive to incubation. Archive to incubation. Yes. So it's closer to where I initially just added dormant in the middle, which is, you know, I understand the arguments because otherwise I feel like we are missing the point of calling this archive rather than of life. The whole point is we can resurrect it. But I understand you might want to say, well, we can always do that anyway, through a proposal and we start a new project and build on the ashes of the previous one. There's nothing stopping you. Yeah. It's not as pretty. I'm sorry. Mermaid is not the best for that. Yeah. And I just put a dotted line because somebody mentioned dotted line. If we want to solve it, let me know. Peter. I definitely want a solid line for me. Let me explain. For me, I read the documentation as rules of law. And so if there was no line, but I wanted to resurrect the project from archive, I wouldn't even bother sending a message saying, hey, could I do this because I would expect to be yelled at being said, have you seen our diagram? The diagram has no arrows, so it's impossible. And I know that maybe not too many people think the same way, but there are some and we would lose out on them even talking to us about calling from archive to incubation just because of the lack of the arrow. Okay. Peter updated. Thank you. Yeah. I think we're reaching our 25 minutes. Is this the one that we're happy with? Or content with. Some of us don't want to do. I could make a motion. Okay. Peter. I think in the motion. All right. So obviously we have to update the PR to reflect this, but I guess, you know, this one that's being displayed on the screen is what we are moving our life cycle to. So all right, did you want to step? Did you want to take us through a vote? In the matter before the TOC. Or no, how do you vote? I love staying. For the first. Okay. I vote for it. David. Yes. Jim. Yes. Peter. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Tracy. Yes. The matter passes with one abstention. All right. Thank you for that. So I can update the PR for you, Tracy. Thank you. As my last contribution to high. Sounds great. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Thank you everyone. Now we will. Move on to our retrospective. All right. So I just wanted to spend some time talking about what we accomplished this year. You know, and get some feedback from the folks that are on the call. About things that, you know, went well. That we might like to do differently that sort of thing. But with that, the first slide is just something that you've probably seen before. It is the list of the TOC members. For 2023. So obviously thank you everyone on this list for being part of the 2023 TOC. Obviously we had some new members joining us this year. And I think that contributions from obviously both our new and existing members have been great. And so I appreciate everybody who has spent the last year working together to make some great progress. Next. These are the goals we came up. So this was our very first meeting. Where we asked the question of what do we want to accomplish for 2023. And I'm not going to read through these, but I will leave them up here for a bit. As I just ramble on. So that you guys can review what it was that we discussed in our very first meeting of 2023. And see, you know, did we accomplish these goals in your mind? Are there things that we didn't accomplish that maybe we want to focus on better. Next year or differently next year. And yeah, so I think hopefully. Given enough time for you guys to have a quick glance anyway. So moving on to the next slide. This is what we did accomplish in 2023. So we had a number of task forces. We started, you know, with the security vulnerability disclosure task force. Where we worked very closely with the open SSF. To come up with a security policy for us as well as a template for our projects to use. In their security policy. And so we did approve that as we made some progress with that, that particular task force. So. That is one great accomplishment that we've had this year. The second one, the second task force that we focused on. Partly sits on this list was a project best practices. So with the project best practices, we had a lot of discussions, great discussions about. Things that we think that. We are currently doing as maintainers that we, we feel like good practices for others to also follow. From that we did create a project best practices guide. And then we adopted the, the GitHub contribution guide that existed in the original fabric documentation. We brought that over to the TOC site. To help people really understand what it, what it's like to use GitHub to make contributions to the Hyperledger projects. And so those, those things came out of that particular task force. We have some ongoing task forces that we started, but haven't yet finished. And we will obviously continue working on those throughout the next year. We have the documentation task force. And then we have the, the, the, there's actually besides the documentation template lab that was created, Bobby. And group. It showed us kind of what could exist in the Metaverse as far as a library for Hyperledger. And I think there was some, some really good stuff that came out of some of the. The experiments that were done around AI and being able to do that. And I think there's a lot of, a lot of interesting things that have come out of that. But Bobby, is there anything that you'd like to add specifically on that documentation task force and. You know, where we should think about taking that as we continue. Yeah. Well, thank you everybody for letting me have these last three years on the TOC. It's been like an education and invaluable to me. So thank you for, for letting me. Serve in that role. The documentation task force is ongoing, which I think is something that. As a TOC, we need to address the fact that this was supposed to be a six month project. And we're now on like month nine. Just to maybe have an end. Or some kind of safety valve. If they go too long. I don't know how you end documentation because it's continual. But we will be giving our recommendations. Maybe the second TOC meeting of the year to maybe vote on, you know, having it put somewhere for people to reference. That would be the maintainer user guide to help them with their. Checkpoints when they're moving their projects through this wonderful new life cycle. So you'll be hearing from us. From the task force to get it completed and get, you know, even, even the library activated or just put it on. That's in the library on a wiki page or somewhere where everyone can access it. So we'll be doing great things in January. So thank you again. Yeah. Thanks probably for that. We'll look forward to seeing what's coming. January. The onboarding content task force. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure where this is at the moment. Anybody have any updates on what. Exactly has happened here. If it paused in. Because we haven't heard anything on that. Recently. Hi, Tracy. It's Bobby again. I think that they're doing a meetup presentation soon. I'm not sure, but I think that on Kasia is doing that. I can check with her and get back to you guys on the status of that. Okay. Appreciate it. Bobby. All right. Peter is working on the automated pipeline best practices. We have had a few meetings on that particular topic. Peter, anything that you'd like to add about where it's at and what you hope. Next year we'll bring with that particular task force. Yes. We have a devaluation of some of the new ideas. Happening. So you're sort of a dog food in way. We in cacti. So that's why I've been holding back a little bit with the progress as well. Apart from just not being able to spend that much time on it. The, the thing is that I handed off some of the tasks for the evaluation to people who came in for the good first issues within the cacti repo. But then because of that, they take a little longer because I'm also working with them on how to make it happen. So that's why I've been holding back a little bit with the progress as well. Apart from just not being able to spend that much time on it. The, the thing is that I handed off some of the tasks for with them on how to make it happen. And so it would be faster if I just did it myself. But I figured it's a, it's actually a good way to get new contributors as well. And if they are willing to do it, then I don't want to be in the way of that. The downside is that it's going a little slower. But with that said, what I definitely want to get done early next year is to close out documentation on it and the survey, the survey first and then the documentation. And for both of those, the dependent, well for the survey, there's no dependency. We can run the survey. But for the documentation to be finalized, we need these little dog fooding test projects to finish first within cacti. And I'm waiting for the contributors to move that as well. And with that said, in the meantime, if anyone comes up with any new ideas on how to make it better, you know where the document is. Or if you don't, then I can send you the link to the draft and I'm happy to add a list of to-dos within the document because we would be happy to evaluate all ideas in terms of how to improve the situation. All right. Thanks, Peter, for that. I think it's great that you are taking the time to mentor new contributors as they come in to work on this. So, you know, perfectly happy that it's taking longer because in the end, I think it's going to only benefit, you know, hyperledger as a whole. So thank you for taking, always taking the time to help folks out. For the badging project life cycle. So Rama, myself, Arun has been spending some time on this. Obviously we just went through and simplified the project life cycle. So I think some of the badging stuff, maybe we have to take a bit of a back to the drawing board approach on this, but Rama, anything that you're thinking about where we're at now and what you'd like to see as next steps. No, I think you summarized it. We had a set of proposals from our discussions in the task force meetings. I had a good chunk of a draft created for a potential board, but then I had to shift attention to some of the tasks and then on a proposed simplified life cycle. And I thought we should just wait to have a consensus on what the new life is going to be before we rework the badging. So there's a ton of notes on from the various discussions and I think the first thing I'll do after returning in the new year is rewriting the draft and maybe we can have another meeting with the task force before we bring the draft to a vote. And just one more thing, since Bobby is leaving the TOC, but at least not Hyperledger, we can definitely consider her idea about building a project dashboard next year. Maybe we can propose it as a Hyperledger mentorship project. Sounds great. Thanks, Roma. And then the security artifact signing is the other ongoing task force. I know Arun was trying to also do some dog fooding to try and get some things working as a sample so that we could see exactly how this is going to work. Arun is not on the call today, but I'm sure that we will continue this work as we move on into 2024. For the project focus, we did approve two projects for graduation this year. One was cacti and the second was firefly. We did move transact to dormant. So now I guess, yeah, we have to figure out, when is that going to happen? So we'll have to figure out some conversations with the maintainers there. And then we did approve both grid and or so for end of life. For the governance, we moved a couple of things to GitHub that we didn't have on GitHub before, specifically the quarterly project updates and meeting minutes. We documented the project updates process. It's a process that we've had it for a while, but really firm that up based on Steven's request. So thank you, Steven, for asking for that. We added NIDI as a hyperledger lab steward. We made some updates to our maintainers.md file guidelines. I think that was another Steven for working through that. And then the last thing that we did was to add the annual review project life cycle process. Now I guess actually really the last thing we did was to simplify the life cycle. But these are the things that we did accomplish in 2023. Anything that anybody thinks I missed from this list? Okay. So then on the next slide is truly our retrospective here. We've talked about what we've done. The first thing that I want to ask you, is there any shout outs that anybody would like to make? Tracy does an awesome job. Thank you for that. Exactly. Daniela. Good morning, everyone. I just want to, you know, thank everyone specifically, obviously the outgoing TOC representatives. Thank you for your time, your contributions over the years. And then just everyone else, you know, the amount of work and the feedback I've gotten from the community around the TOC processes and a lot of the project life cycle and a lot of the, you know, enterprise grade recommendations that you all make are really making an impact on the community. So I want to thank everyone. Congratulations to the new TOC members as well. We're looking forward to working with you in 2024. And everyone's continued support and congratulations to the new chairs as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I second everyone's comments around all your contributions. It's been fantastic to work, to continue to work with you. So thank you. Thank you, everyone. I know this is, you know, everyone spends a lot of time supporting our hyperledger community and it shows. Yes. I will, I will second the shout out to all of the different TOC members and the contributions that you've made. And I think that's also called out specifically the, the task force chairs or whatever you want to call that. You know, without you, we wouldn't be able to accomplish profitable, we'd accomplish. So, you know, you should take that as, you know, looking at the, the things that we were able to add to the TOC processes and the changes that we've made are all because you've led us through this and made this happen. So thank you so much for volunteering or maybe being volunteered, if you will, for some of you that you would lead a particular task force, but, you know, thank you so much for the effort that you've put in. Any other shout outs that anybody has? All right. What do we think went well this year, Peter? It's a lot. Let's move in a little closer to using GitHub issues for governance and proposals. And reviewing the quarterly reports as well. I think that was great. Yeah, great. Thanks, Peter. So definitely part of our simple process. So it makes it somewhat easier. Other things that people think went well. I think that I want you all to know how much I appreciate the professionalism and the lack of drama. In working with the Hyperledger TOC, these meetings are always a pleasure. Well, not always a pleasure, but they're pleasurable. They run really well. And, you know, everyone takes everyone seriously. And I really appreciate that. Everyone, all the TOC members should feel good that they've done the right thing. Thanks, Frank. Yeah. Now, now that you've said something, how could I miss shouting out to you and the other staff members for keeping me. Seeing during these meetings, running, helping me run these meetings and, you know, just making me stay on top of things that I should be on top of like the elections that I completely forgot. And you guys, probably specifically, came up with the schedule course. So my bad for not even thinking about that. But yeah, you guys are, are the silent force behind us. So thank you so much for that. You are very welcome. Anything else that people think went well. It's just more of the same. I wanted to say thank you for all the foundation employees. Every time I show up at an event, at an event, Daniel and Hart and David and Ryan, everybody just greets me with a lot of enthusiasm, like I was some important person. Right. I'm sorry. That's too old of a reference. And the other thing is the organization, the structure, it really helps me too, because I do forget things as well. And for example, David Boswell and Sean, they always help with event organization and they always push me to actually get it done, which probably would not happen without them. So yeah, just a long list of thank yous and compliments to everybody because it makes a big difference for me personally. Thanks for that, Peter. All right, I'm going to combine these last two bullets in the last two and a half minutes that we have. Things that you think we could do better or differently or recommendations that you have for next year's DOC. I'm sure we're not perfect. It's probably something. I can't think of anything. I, you know, I've, you know, everything from my perspective has gone pretty smoothly. And, you know, what could we do differently? Probably a lot of things. What could we do better? I can't think of anything off the top of my head where something is causing pain or tension for me. I like having chat in our meetings today. I thought that was useful. I forgot to turn it off. No, don't do it. Keep it on. It's a useful channel. Especially since I forgot to create the summer 14 channel and or thread in discord this week, because life gets in the way. It does. I think we've got a pretty good pace going. I think it's helpful. I thought, you know, coming on board this year and trying to understand the flow and where to jump in was made pretty easy and helpful. And I think we, hopefully we can do that for the next DOC members. But, you know, saying how things work really worked well and makes it much easier to jump in. And so the well-organized and clear processes really help. Right. Yeah. And we do have three new members that are joining us for next year. So for those, those three members, obviously. You know, we're here to help. Right. If you have questions at any point, please don't hesitate to reach out or stop there. Stop us during the meeting and say what the heck it's going on here. You know, this is, this is intended to be an open discussion about the process easier and better for people. So yeah, please. Make sure that you stop me, raise your hand. You know, let me know that something needs to be said. Okay. Well, then with that, I think we are at our time. And I do appreciate again, everybody for their, their work this year. I know Bobby, we will definitely miss you. You know, being on the TOC, please don't hesitate to stop by Bobby. I know you said you're going to still be around. So that's good. If you ever want to, you know, a referee, you know, visit your past, please don't hesitate to stop in. And yeah, I hope everybody has a great end of the year and a great new year. And we will see you next year. Happy holidays, everybody. And thank you. Thank you everyone. Happy holidays. Thanks. See you.