 Okay all right do it to it. Hello everyone welcome to the weekly TSC call. I think you all know that judging by the list of participants, this is a public meeting, everybody's welcome to join in and contribute. There's two conditions though, you need to be aware and lead by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is being currently displayed, and then the code of conduct that you all love and at home of course. So all right so we actually have kind of a different agenda this week. So I'm looking forward to the discussion. First let's start with the the announcements. We'll start with the reminder. I don't know if we need to spell it out but there's the newsletter. Please take advantage of it. The staff keeps scrambling begging for content. It all depends on us to help and chip in. I don't know actually the the MEA I don't know if it's still relevant. I'm kind of copied that over from last week. Is there more to be said on that one? For the global forum? No I think we're in good shape. Okay we'll reach out to individuals who haven't responded directly. And people who haven't registered yet should definitely do so and help by you know spreading the word. There's a convenient link that was provided to us which allows you to quickly tweet about it and you know let all your followers be aware. And then so I wanted to highlight two new activities that are kind of starting or restarting. The first one is with regard to the blockchain. Sorry let me get this dark cloud over here. Just told me sleepy dogs decided to get up now. Sorry about that. So the first one is blockchain interoperability. So it's definitely a hot topic obviously because you all know we have had the cactus project going on for a while with basically two different approaches that kind of seeded this work. One from Maxenture the other from Fujitsu. And then recently IBM launched a new lab with a new approach called River. We had a presentation actually on this call a couple of weeks ago or so. And then there's actually another company I don't know if we can give the details by hand but there is another lab that's going to come in that you know takes a different approach. And so that's actually at least three different you know efforts in the same space of interoperability. And I you know we were having some you know sideline discussion about this and I said and quite frankly you know everybody thinks they have a better approach than the others. But when you start digging it's not always obvious as always there are pros and cons to every approach. And there is sometimes some misunderstanding of you know what really each approach entails. And so I felt like it would be good to you know make start an effort where we try to draft a little bit of a comparison between the different approaches. And of course it's kind of like you know it can be difficult. People become emotional about their own approach. But I think we all adults can objectively kind of look at the different aspects maybe based on different dimensions of in some kind of a table. And so we're discussing doing this and then Brian said you know what I think it would be good to actually leverage the architecture working group to get that discussion going rather than doing that in some kind of you know ad hoc group. So this is an invitation for everybody interested in interoperability to join the architecture working group or have a look there is the link on the agenda will bring you to the web page which allows you to subscribe if you're not subscribed if you access to the archive and all that stuff. And so when we actually brought that up the architecture working group has been dormant for quite a while and to the point where I wasn't even sure who was officially the chair anymore. But they responded they said no we're still here and happy to pick up that work and VP actually said we had started working on interoperability so we'd love to you know resurrect this work and work with the rest of the community of this topic. So I think this is really cool is they're promising there's definitely a lot of interest and hopefully we can have a fruitful discussion that will lead to better understanding of the pros and cons of the different approaches and and hopefully lead to some collaboration beyond that that would you know maybe where there's some common code that could be pulled out of the project and shared among the different projects. So that was the announcement regarding this is there more you want to add Brian? Just that the the other contribution coming in I mean the company's name you can find it on the the thread that we started on the architecture working group mailing list but the interesting thing about it is that it implements connectors to a protocol called IBC the interblock chain communications protocol which is part of the the COSMOS network kind of thing but it also I mean arguably is emerging as one of a set of interoperability specs on the kind of public blockchain side so in terms of weaving our stuff together with what's going on beyond hyperlegia it could be pretty interesting thing so just if interoperability is on anyone's mind and priority for anybody participating in the conversation would be cool. It might still mean that there are three different interoperability projects living at Hyperledger in the future but at least it would be a way to clearly distinguish them from each other and ideally there are opportunities to combine code efforts in some places because more eyes fewer lines of code always a good thing. All right thank you so you've been informed please join in and then there's another point David you added that I'm going to let you talk to it. This is a similar story to the architecture working group you know the performance and scale group hasn't been that active recently at least in English so I'm just working with that group to try to reactivate things also working with the technical working group China which has been doing a lot of work around performance although not within the performance and scale working group so they're looking at how to combine efforts and collaborate and move over some of the conversations that have been happening in the technical working group China and Chinese but make that more available to an English audience in the performance and scale working group so we're just working through the logistics of when to try to do a new meeting so if you're interested join the mailing list and there'll be details posted there soon we're not a hundred percent sure if they do want to fully reboot or not the the initial thinking is have one or two meetings see if there's interest or not and then go from there based on the response so if you are interested join the list there'll be more detail soon. All right thank you any questions about any available or any other announcements seems to be a day-reaching announcement so don't refrain yourself if you feel like making some announcements maybe you heard about Bayern is a Iceland treatment all right if not let's move on so I carried over the Q1 Hyperledger Explorer report that is kind of late to come in last week so I want to make sure if anybody had you know anything they wanted to raise they would have that opportunity I didn't see any comments to the you know that would make me believe that we need to have a discussion but this is the opportunity okay if not then we just I mean we actually received it a couple of days ago Stephen Curran hosted the Hyperledger INDE report and it's the same I haven't seen I mean they do talk about the the main item is CICDE work they brought that up in the question issues for the TSE but I think it was mostly just about highlighting what's going on there I don't think it's a call for action from the report certainly an area I personally would love to see more collaboration on I was talking to another project in Hyperledger and they were trying to sort out their CICD and they were unaware that the rest of the projects were either moving to GitHub Actions or or that's like the preferred place to do it which was a surprise to me but I would definitely love to see more inter-project work when it comes to CICD and best practices with GitHub Actions all right any comments or questions from anyone all right if not we can move along so we have a proposal to make a decision on so we talked about that and Tracy went ahead and forged this proposal to add a state to the life cycle where we could declare that the project is in the dormant state and that would apply for instance for the quilt project where they have these clothes that they don't expect to do anything for a while so I hope everybody had a chance to look at it is there any questions or are we ready to make a call or Tracy do you want to highlight any aspect of it I think I highlighted in the overview the the two kind of pieces that you know change from previous decisions that we may have made one the addition of the dormant state and then the second one is that we had previously said that all movement through the life cycle will be forward this actually adds the line backwards from the dormant state back to the incubation state so I think those are kind of the two highlights I think the other thing that came up in the comments was the fact that you can move directly to end of life state which was what Hart had requested in the chat so that's why that's there and then secondly Dan oh you had a question regarding whether or not each state transition requires an act of the TSE and I believe the answer to that is yes so that was that was actually the one thing I wanted to ask about it you know the proposal doesn't explicitly say how this gets triggered how you move from you know wherever you are to dormant and out of dormant to wherever I think it'd be good to put a sentence saying you know by TSE's decision or something like this sure yeah we can do that and that leaves it open enough that you know it's it could come from the project itself it could come from TSE or anybody who would bring it up the issue and say hey you know I think you know this should be moved to dormant state but at least you know it's clear that it's it's up to the TSE to make that call and I don't know that we need to be more formal than that otherwise I think that would do it Nathan I was going to mention that I agree we don't want to probably be any more formal than what we have here it is technically probably possible that someone could take a deprecated or an end of life product project and make a new proposal for a new project that became its successor and used its code or reputation but we would expect that would be a very exceptional case and the proposal would include justification of reasons why that was what was supposed to happen so you know while it's I think from a process standpoint everything always moves forward if someone's worried that that's a project would somehow get stuck or you know abandoned through some official channel of Hyperledger I think that as a TSE we would be prepared to consider anyone who wanted to move forward technology that has been at Hyperledger currently or in the past yeah and that's funny because I was attending a was it a meet-up the other day and somebody talking about Damol and how Damol was a good replacement for the people were still missing composer and in the chat somebody said yeah it's a pity you know we should restart composer and I say well nobody's stopping you you know if people want to restart composer they could right and I completely agree with you said Nathan that you know finally somebody could pick up the code they could you know for kid put it wherever start working on it and they could also come back to the TSE and say hey we want to start a new project which is like like he said the new composer kind of thing I you know there's nothing that stops that from happening and I don't think we need to say anything about it it's the nature of open source from that point of view it's like if people want to do it they can all right so Dano you had this question does the what we said satisfy your question answer your question yeah I just thought it was worth clarifying that yeah that's the way I read it everyone's in agreement with it but sometimes these things can get weird so no I agree I and that's why I think we should add that sentence somewhere in there all right any other questions or comments are we ready to make a decision I know sorry this is Andrew and I mean I like the automatized very colorful and but are the rules clear for the for each transition from one state to another state are all then well-defined then the so people understand what it means to transition from one state to another under so it's all well-defined so as I mean there are some that are clearly defined in excruciating details right like getting out of incubation especially well I think the like entering incubation is well defined too I think we've also defined the depicted and end of life pretty well because we went through this exercise with composer so the dormant stuff is what we are adding now and what you just said is we don't need to be very detailed about the mechanism other than say you know it's up to the decision of the TSE we it can be brought up by anybody and the TSE will look at it then then you are saying that there is a state that is not well defined is not defined completely yet I feel just taking a decision on something that is half naked though but maybe just me and just just this if we everything is well defined I'm fine with the with the out of so you're not satisfied with just leaving it open to the TSE you know because that's if we can be more precise I would appreciate but of course the TSE I guess it's always the last word yeah that's the catch all I give it to you that it's a bit hand-waving but I mean if you think about the Quilt use case because that's the one you know it's triggering all this they basically volunteer to be in the state like this right so they wouldn't there's not much controversy in this case they come to us they say hey watch out we're not going to do anything for a while maybe there's a state I don't know where we should be put and so now our answer will be fine we'll just mark you as dormant no problem let us know when you wake up so if right if you could go back to the uh wiki page I just updated it to add the statement in the description piece uh so yeah scroll down right here uh so I added the second sentence the TSE will make the decision as to whether a project will move to the dormant state upon request very good all right I'm fine all right thank you nice live editing Tracy all right so let's uh it sounds like everybody's satisfied let's go for a vote does anybody want to second it sure second second all right we heard at least two so let's I second this one all right don't throw more we're good um so who wants to oppose the proposal nobody anybody wants to be marked as abstaining nobody all right everybody in support say hi hi hi hi all right I'll note that Gary used the green check mark technology so well that's cool too okay Tracy um do you want to do a PR to the TSE documentation or do you want me to do it or how do you want to do that yeah I'm happy to do it right okay thanks yep all right so there'll be the action item so don't close it yet uh right I what I do is I mark it as approved but then I wait for the action item to have been carried out so that we to close it so it's still kind of pending and we don't lose track until it's been reflected in the documentation all right all right thank you let's move on so we have a couple of discussion items that were brought up by uh the staff I mean David who was the vehicle but I suppose uh um you know from my understanding there was discussion within the team and in preparation to the global forum they were looking back at the member summit out of the member summit which happened a few quite a few months ago now um they were a bunch of proposals that were brought up by the participant and two of them were specifically you know targeted to the TSE and they came to ask me what has the TSE done about any of this if you have done and I said well I'm not sure we've done anything specific but I'm happy to bring it up to the group and uh have a discussion about so this is what it's about it'd be good to take a position on those issues so let's start with the first one so we were actually you know asked to form a working group for updating the technical scope of hyperledia to discuss and recommend action and especially there were a lot of discussion about going beyond blockchain and saying well you know there's a lot of discussions about decentralized web multi-party systems in general and maybe you know we should allow ourselves as an organization to you know entertain activities in that space but it's kind of a change of the charter um and I actually this would have to be my understanding and Brian can tell me if I'm wrong but it would have to be endorsed by the governing board but the governing board is not going to tell us what we should do but so we should you know come up with the proposal and so there could be a working group or you know it could be a task force kind of thing it doesn't have to be a long lasting group but that actually focuses on what that would mean any reaction what is the current phrasing of the charter okay sorry Daniel can you repeat that what is the current phrasing of that section of the charter I think that might be instructive I think we question Brian pulling that up but it's it's generally around enterprise blockchain let me get the charter link on the hyperledger website the link here I'll drop it in the tsc chat and at the very top it says the mission of the hyperledger project I mean there's a lot to update in the charter frankly because it hasn't been amended for about a year and a half but but actually this stretch I don't think it's been amended since it was adopted in January 2016 which is create an enterprise-grade open source distributed ledger framework and code base upon which users can build robust industry-specific applications platforms hardware systems to support business transactions I you know in a technical community to support that so so there it you know it does focus on distributed ledger framework it doesn't it's their use of the word blockchain anywhere in this thing there is let's see yes focused on blockchain and shared ledger use in the b part one one b and then I think somewhere else but I'm not sure so it's not it's not too closely tied you know it's it's a you know it has been brought up that the term multi-party systems is a way of kind of further further distinguishing that you know that there's a universe of different ways to build these kinds of systems and some of the folks building them kind of sometimes recoil at the word blockchain but not to talk about it in a marketing sense just to say we might be open to things that to technologies that we wouldn't necessarily call classic blockchain technologies or or DLT technologies you know to some degree that might be a self the fact that we haven't seen those kinds of things show up yet might be characteristic of just the fact the way that we present ourselves to the world you know it's not like there's a big backlog of projects that would come in if we were to make a change like this but it does it you know I think the open question that came up during the the member summit was are we are we are that is there a broader universe of different options out there and something that an updated mission statement might actually help this recruit right so how does his hand sure I mean at least the way I read the charter right now it sort of already encompasses all of these things like blockchain and distributed ledger have sort of been defined to mean basically everything that's sort of distributed so if I were closely reading this if I were just reading this charter and sort of we at you asked me you know if these things on the agenda item would be included I would say they probably would be included under the existing charter now people might disagree with the reading but you know it sort of seems like they would already be included that being said you know updating the charter probably makes a lot of sense there have been a number of cases where we've had issues with the charter and if changing the words of the charter help us pull in more people or more contributions I think that would be fantastic yeah and I think you know that's the I mean so the request came to us right from the like members and obviously our options are you know we could just say no thank you we don't think we need to change anything it probably will feel you know that we're not being very responsive to their to what they're telling us but the other the alternative is we we say okay let's create a group of people interested to have a look at this scrub it a bit and possibly make it a bit more open-ended in a more obvious way rather than yeah if I can you know pass between the line I think it actually allows us to do a bit more but make it actually more you know have you done that yeah there are other things that feel in that that fall into the scope with that any kind of you know anybody feeling we are playing game with the charter can I jump back in and say that you still have your hand up I was going to ask if it was you know forgotten no go ahead no no if we may also want to update the charter to sort of reflect the reality of what we've become so you know just reading this you know the first line is create an enterprise grade open source distributed ledger framework singular so like maybe we should update this to sort of reflect the the changes envisioned that the project has had so like the greenhouse or whatever we're calling it now and and all that kind of stuff so there is a group that's been meeting to revisit the greenhouse graphic and the the you know kind of core white paper for the project maybe combined with what one thing that could be proposed would be that that group also consider updates to the charter to reflect both the current nature and also potentially does that you know where it could go and maybe it is to include other terminology that that helps speak beyond ledgers and blockchain is that put out too much on that group well let's ask Elan I mean she's leading that effort I mean of course you're a boss so you could tell her just do that maybe she has an opinion and then yeah hi um I'm sorry can you can you repeat the focus of the question so Elan the group that's been formed to revisit the white paper and the greenhouse the and the website you know proposal as well in order to address this topic that came up from last year's member summit is you know should the charter at the very least the very beginning of the charter which spells out the mission for for hyper ledger should be updated to reflect the current nature but also you know see if there's ways to nudge it just beyond a focus on blockchain and DLT and whether the group that's been formed to work on that updating of the white paper and greenhouse graphic whether they could take that that on as well or if that be too much oh well yeah I think it might be just just because we're yeah I would say that it might be a separate conversation and I mean our nose been there in all of our and you know the previous meetings to discuss the the updates to the greenhouse and the the white paper and you know they're very much focused on how to convey the in the ecosystem environment that hyper ledger conveys today in terms of rewriting the charter I would feel like there would need to be kind of a maybe even if it's similar same people we would need to kind of accompany it with some different meetings meeting times and reframe the focus for something like this but yeah I might unless we're ready to take on more work which you know I can't speak for the whole the whole group I would say that maybe adding having a different community group put together to to work through these items might be in order yeah I'll add to that we're here Helen and I and Brian everyone else on staff we're here to serve you all all right so to some degree you know tell us how you'd like to structure it but it does sound from Helen's response like having a separate small group meeting to focus on this it can be separated from the work on updating the white paper and greenhouse graphic and also might even though there's overlap might involve some new voices so yeah that probably be I don't know it might be a task force kind of thing yeah I think so I think so because this is something that should be time bounded and all that so work that was the difference we when we introduced task force we say task force they have a clear agenda to produce something specific within a certain time frame while working groups can be long lasting and not have any specific output so I think that falls into the task force bucket could I could I ask and I don't have any visibility into this would it be possible for us staff to get a set of members who are not actively involved in the technical goings on to work like three or four representatives to work with our three or four representatives to kind of clarify what it is exactly they want or is that a terrible idea no I don't think that's terrible idea and it touches a little bit on the second point but the only problem with that is you know that I see is that members who are not actively developing projects they can dream every goal they might you know they want but it doesn't mean much in my opinion unless there are people where you know there's an actual buy-in from developers that's the only danger you might have a mission statement that's not in line with what people were actually writing code are interested in doing then it kind of defeats the point because of course you might think no it is going to invite others that will be interested in that yeah I think the members asked phrased it this way asked the TSC partly to pass the baton but also to ground it in what the TSC and the technical community really thinks is right you know rather than projecting I mean these are not disjoint groups so many of the all of you are also hyperledger members so so didn't want to like you know if there's not a dichotomy here I think I think setting this up as a task force its work will be public you know public facing anyways having folks participate who are not technical might actually be advantageous might might there might be some good things to it but you know I think it really is what does the technical community think an update to the mission save it might look like perhaps other parts of the charter beyond this first paragraph as well the first stanza about about the mission um maybe that's the mission of the task force itself is propose updates to the mission primarily and secondarily other parts of the charter that could be updated looking at other charters of other Linux foundation projects uh or or even other open source projects too yeah I agree and I think we can make I mean back to what you were saying right I don't think we need to make it exclusive one way or the other we should in fact make it open not you know to everybody to participate and I think you know you guys can help us reach out to the other members and make sure they're aware there's this opportunity to participate and hopefully we'll get some of the people who actually motivated this this proposal in the first place from the member summit right they were people were vocal and say yes this is important so hopefully they will step up and join the task force and can help us shape this and from a process point of view brand was I right and when I said basically all we can do is come up with a proposal that the governing board will then have to decide yes yeah that's that's that's accurate um anything anything well argued is likely to be uh accepted you know anything that's not a dramatic departure we're going to get into gambling or something um I I know it yeah there would be um that that yeah the the governing board is what approves changes to the charter all right sounds good any other opinions anybody I just wanted to jump in and offer a little bit of context as well so these proposals came out of different sessions at member summit um and the first one specifically was out of a session focusing where the main topic was anticipating and planning for the long term future of DLT so um it's sort of with that overall topic in mind that this proposal came out and then the second one um is along the lines of the effort with the um uh white paper which was um the overall topic of that session was building a better greenhouse and so um that was the overall topic of that session and this proposal came out of that session thank you Karen so otherwise anybody thinks it's a bad idea to create this task force to work on the mission statement in the charter and possibly others you know scrub the rest that's because if not I think we'll you know I'll consider this is agreed upon and then the next question becomes okay who is in charge of setting that up is the staff going to dry this Brian if we set this up as a task force it'd be great to have a chair uh you know um or kind of somebody leading that from the community but we'd certainly facilitate and support do we have a volunteer among the TSE members to kind of chair this task force it's a really powerful position actually they kind of raise when it comes to the mission like okay um I would just I'd be happy to help whoever is is sharing so if that helps we will we will for sure I don't see anybody jumping into chair though when it shouldn't be a big job right it's they're not so I feel there could still be overlap between um the task force which is set up to redesign the white paper and because there could be overlapping topics um yeah we would present yeah um but I think having them be separate task forces and uh efforts would be is where we're heading yeah I know everyone's busy I mean I could bring it to the task force and have them I would just hate to have add more work to them without having consulted them you know if that makes sense so I mean what we could do is I could bring this item say you know this is something that is was discussed in the task force in the TSE um is this something we we want to take on is there a group of us that you know want to continue forward with some more um you know like a subgroup of the current task force or would that just complicate things no I think that's a good idea I mean there's some value in leveraging the group we already have but uh yeah for me I would participate in a way so it's kind of convenient if it's within the same group I'm already in so but uh it's hot yeah I'm also in that group I'm not sure we necessarily need another group I think the charter changes are going to be probably a lot more controversial than some of the greenhouse changes or even if they're not controversial there's they'll sort of need more approval um but it would make sense for that group to sort of issue a recommendation as to maybe general ways they think the charter should change even if that sort of gets words mythed by others the other thing is is there anyone on the board who would be willing to to sort of work on this while it's in progress um it would probably be used since the board ultimately has to approve it would probably be useful if someone from the board was involved in the process yeah I'll offer to go recruit somebody from the board to help uh help with this I can't you know say for sure that you know person X will do it but um I can think of people I would recruit to help with this all right I think that's a good that's a good way for to I mean a good thing to pursue for now it actually gives something to move forward to and if it doesn't work out if we still can't find anybody well we'd we'll have to advise and figure out another way but I'm happy with that okay well I so we want to form this task force then and and we will recruit for participants on the task force and and and then recruit for a chair among those participants yeah and I mean since we are you know we're we have said we need to open this up not just to the tc or the governing board you know they may be volunteers outside of these groups you know yeah chairs I don't know so can we put the action item on the staff to kind of you know spread the word that we are trying to set up this task force and looking for somebody to lead it see if we can find out what we're here maybe we should all ask the marketing working group because I believe some of these questions were brought up by them as well yeah we have our next marketing committee meeting next week I can definitely recruit from that that pool as well all right so I just want to make sure the soul of the mission is firmly planted in the the technical community you know yeah and the maybe we can't I'm just the marketing post brand this this would just so there's anything wrong with with marketing people we're all we're all in marketing in some way in some ways yep and yeah but uh this is this is really the identity of the project you know yeah I mean no fool I would nobody want I think you know once the task force comes up with something the first they will be some tsc members I hope participated in the effort and then we'll bring it to the tsc for review discussion maybe refinement and then go to the governing board once we are satisfied that's kind of the chain yeah I'm foreseeing okay all right thank you so now let's go to the second point which kind of I have to admit made me smile when I read it right and I'll tell you why because it says you know so firstly it asks a bunch of questions to be reasonable like should convergence be a goal should interoperability be a goal but then where what amused me was the you know uh the word we should require and I'm like well good luck requiring anything in an open source project you know we've seen it all along we've been I mean even in the tsc we've been from the very beginning we've been saying yeah we should have more collaborations between the projects but there's no way we can we can force the projects to do it there were some collaboration that happened when people saw a benefit in doing so and that's the extent of it so personally I think it's probably not you know well worded from that point of view but so I wanted to open it they may be still the way around that you know that's not kind of naive and saying we can require anything from developers when it comes to again to the direction of the projects and collaborations with others Brian I would I and it's hard with just 12 minutes left in the hour to get into a deep conversation on this so it might be something we we want to punt to another another call but you know maybe the thing to do is to have a group that looks at how do other open source communities work with this and how successful are they at you know managing those those conflicts and and and the like you know just a group to kind of drop a survey you know or just kind of some comparison chart you know looking at CNCF and Apache on one end of the spectrum looking at the Ethereum ecosystem and how they drive conversions around you know their things that find them even though there is optionality and differences of opinion and choice you know where's the line with that perhaps looking at other technical communities like how much does convergence pay off how much versus how much does optionality pay off and and maybe just make it like a kind of a learning process that might eventually come up with recommendations on you know when when have communities placed requirements on on code basis you know and then come back to the TSE with kind of here's here's what seems to work elsewhere all right that's an interesting take and David I sorry to put you on the spot but I thought because so you guys understand I mean David brought that to me and I kind of expressed what I said earlier in email and David responded that I thought you had some interesting point to your email do you want to kind of bring that up here well sure I mean this could be an opportunity I mean I do think that in general not everybody necessarily understands to your point about maybe how the dynamics of an open source community works this could be an opportunity perhaps to share a little bit more about you know how do you make an impact in an open source project you know if you want to move the project in a certain direction perhaps we could provide some more guidance and education on that and and maybe use that as a you know opportunity to invite people to to get in if there are people interested in this you know I mean this for those who weren't at the member summit this was something that was on the top of many people's minds you know is that an indication that there might be people there who would help if they had more of an idea about what the you know next steps were to to make some of these things happen so if that's what you were referring to Arnaud in my email you know that was my thought you know is this maybe a way to not necessarily turn it around but you know offer an invitation like yes this sounds great the TSE welcomes us the TSE you know you know if you want to have some of these things happen the TSE he is here to support you and these are the these are some of the ways that you could show up and help help make these things happen yeah all right thank you any other reactions comments you know for me it's kind of you know my initial reaction is like oh here we come here we go again it's kind of like the long-term was it long-term agenda issue which we just closed like last week which raises the biggest question of all which is how does that all come together in one way and what can we do to force that convergence and you know I like shrugging when I see this thing I'm like yeah we are going to create a group they are going to go over the same thing I mean there was a link from this issue by the way from the the architecture working group which had made some very keen observations on the states of the hyperledger organization and all the different projects and just kind of saying yep that's just the way it is and I'm not sure there's much we can do or hope to do that would force a change in that way well to me this goes back to what I mean you shared the story earlier about going to that meetup where people talked about oh hey it would be great if a composer bit came back so I mean I think this is maybe similar if if we keep hearing people say they're interested in a thing but they're not stepping up and doing that thing maybe there's a pathway that is not as straightforward as it could be or is not as easy for people to understand and discover and follow as it could be you know you know I think in both instances maybe if we keep hearing over and over I'm interested in x I'm interested in x from a variety of people that seems to suggest there's a pool of people people who may do a set of things so what is it that's preventing them from doing that you know is there is that pathway just not clear enough for them or are there hurdles or blocks along that way I don't see anybody raising their hand I don't know if you know how to interpret the silence maybe you guys can speak up with you know do you think this is misguided do you think yeah why not I mean we we kind of need to make a decision from a TSC point of view as to how we dispose of this you know comment slash recommendation we got from the member summit and we could say you know well being there done sorry or we could say yeah let's create a group and I don't know anything I mean we it'd be good to have some kind of an official response right now my default would be yeah I feel your pain but that's just the way it is Nathan I agree with what you've expressed I know and that the community is going to do what the community is motivated to do and if we can make the charter better reflect that reality and that helps more people come and contribute I think that's great but I'm not too worried about the specifics the particulars of the wording because regardless of what the charter says it's the volunteers that show up inside do work that make the difference so you know I think any changes we make here the focus should be on you know how do we make that community better all right thank you anyone else otherwise I guess we can close on this I don't know where that leaves us in terms of the second point but Ryan what do you suggest well I do go back to like like let's I wonder if there's something we can learn from other communities what's the right structure for that learning so maybe the right thing for us to staff to think about is ways that we might bring some of these observations from other communities into our work streams here you know maybe in the form of special guest presentations the TSC on the topic of how other communities manage this how do you manage scope you know and convergence versus optionality or things we can forward on to the list that people can read at their leisure if people don't mind us kind of dropping stuff in like this that might prompt some other conversation that's great I don't know that this is one of those solvable things I guess and maybe we just report back to the members you know that on this item you know it was hard to find you know any passion in the TSC community around solving this conclusively so I push it back on the members if this is something you want solved then we need some folks to step up on the on the membership side all right I can do that sounds good thank you okay so I guess with that we can call it a day and close the meeting any other thoughts all right guess not well thank you all for joining talk to you next week goodbye