 All right. Hello everyone. Welcome to the TSC call. So the first let's start with the legalese. So as you know, this is a public call. Everybody's welcome to join and contribute. However, there are two requirements to do so. You must know and live by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is currently displayed and the code of conduct that we all live by and which is linked from the agenda. With that done, we can move on to the announcements. So, Rai, you want to do the honor of the newsletter reminder? Sure. The newsletter is for the community. And it's a place for projects to announce goings on about the projects. So that every Friday, you've got a couple hundred people that read it. So please check it out. And then let's see. I already canceled the call next week. And Helen, did you want to do the typology form or Brian? Sure. I'll do it. Yes. Things are looking really cool for next week. Lots of stuff coming in, late breaking in terms of, you know, panels and things like that. And really good numbers on unregistered. So really just hoping if you haven't registered yet and you can make the time, please come. If, for any reason, the registration price is a challenge, let us know. There's plenty of discounts available. And, yeah, really just want to see everybody there. And thank you to everybody on the call who is presenting there, because it's a key way for us to get the word out about what we're doing, especially being able to put the videos up later and to use the content to drive all sorts of other interesting stuff for the rest of this year. So hope to see many of you, many or even all of you there. All right. Thank you. And so as Rai pointed out, so I did want to cancel next week's call. I mean, there will be the conference obviously. So I think we can skip next week so that we can all focus on the conference, not that the call distract us. So we'll be meeting again on June 17 instead. Okay. So is there any other announcement anybody else wants to make? I'm going to raise their hand. So we'll move on. So we have two quarterly reports. Yes, I still because as you may have seen, Silas did come around and publish the report for Borough. And he announced it to the list actually, which was nice. So is there any questions? So I assume you, I mean, looking at the number of people, tick the boxes, it seemed like the people had the time to review the reports. They was from the Chillow team, they did the call out to get help from front-end developers. So if you know of anybody looking for a cool project to work on, who was interested in front-end development, you could point them towards the Chillow project. Otherwise, there was no issue raised. The Borough project obviously seemed to have hit some important milestone. And you may have seen that Silas was highlighting some of the achievements they've made and wanted to highlight that. But otherwise, there was no real call for action for the TSC. So unless anybody has any questions about any of those, I think we can call those done. I don't see any hands raising. I was just going to say, I'm sure Silas is always looking for help too. Yeah, that's a good point, Mark. I guess that's kind of true across the board anyway, but... Yeah, as ever, hi, Silas here. Hey, yeah, no, I'm lurking. Hello. Thanks. Yeah, I think I kind of made one remark there about how the new Code Gen feature is not terribly well documented. It's sometimes slipping down to the bottom of the stack. And I worry a little bit about its discoverability. So there's definitely some fairly straightforward documentation that could happen there if anyone wants to chime in. I also just had a look on the Insights link. And I'd like to admit I may have double counted some of the contributors. I've got some from the end of March. So I think there's at least there's probably two contributions there that were actually end of March anyway. So may I culper on that? But otherwise, it has been a good quarter for reasons I don't fully understand. But I'll take that. All right. Well, that's great. Sounds good. Thank you. Bobby. Yes, I would like to extend the Learning Materials Working Group to help you out, Silas. So send me an email or just reach out and we'll get started. Well, there you go. How about that? Thanks. I saw a hand flashing, but I didn't see who that was and it's gone. So I guess we're done. Let's go. All right. Let's move on to the rest of the agenda then. So of course, first and foremost, we should continue the discussion on the Firefly Proposal. There's been a lot of traffic on the GitHub. I mean, first on the Google doc in the mailing list and the GitHub repo now. I mean, there was a... So I think we should try to assess where we are. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion also outside of the main channels. People have been talking privately and trying to figure out what's going on. So let's try to put everything on the table and see where we stand so that maybe we can figure out the way forward. So I will give a chance to the collider team first to give an update. I saw Steve sent an email. I think it was yesterday. I have to admit not to be sure of the timing anymore because there is still email flying around. So whether it's yesterday or today, it seems to be a bit irrelevant. But do we have Steve on? Yes, I'm here. Yes, please. So maybe a good place to start is that email with just a quick recap of the Delta for folks like you're saying or no, just to try to stay up to speed on all that's happening. So maybe I'll just step through that really quickly here. It should only take a minute. And then potentially we could turn it over to maybe the meteor discussion today around the fabric smart client project. So what's changed since last week is there's feedback there to move the hip into GitHub that happened. As you noted, there were a number of comments that continued the engagement around the comments. And so you can check those out. The link, it looks like you pulled in the link to that for folks to see some of the ongoing dialogue. There was a lot of good comments from Angelo and Dave. And some of those resulted in two, I'll categorize them in a couple different buckets. One was cleaning up some of the language in the proposal to just be more concise and more clear and not to overreach on the marketing type of claims. So I went through the document and pulled that out in several places and expanded on some other areas as well. Jim was also active in some of the more discussion, that was kind of the other bucket of questions there, more of a discussion type format. And I think some of that has evolved into the larger discussion around the fabric smart client topic. But just to round out the other more tactical updates, the other thing, two other areas I'd like to call out that have changed on the documents since last week is the sponsors. There are several new sponsors. You know, I'll mention a couple specifically here. Eugene from the Avalon project. We've had discussions with him about how Firefly could evolve to plug in Avalon and to leverage some of the good things that that project has as a result of some of those conversations he signed on. And then Arun also, it wasn't actually in my email last night, but as of this morning, sponsored, if he does want to speak up, I'll give him a chance to, but we really appreciate that endorsement as well. Just a quick note on Arun's behalf, he's signed as an individual, not having his corporate mission, as many people did, and Gary and others on the list there. And so we respect that and any sort of official communications going forward, we want to respect that as well. And then finally, there was discussion last time around contributors. There is a third contributing company, Consensus Health, that has signed on to commit resources to the project. I know there may have been a little confusion before some of it self-inflicted with, you know, how we wrote up Tato's. They were the second party in addition to Clyda who had committed resources. And so we've clarified, you know, how they fit into the project as well. So if you, that's worth everyone pleased to take a look at. The last item on moving from the hip itself, there was a larger question around, I think maybe from Grace, around like a community building plan. We did have discussions with David B. and with Rai who had been really helpful pulling in sort of some of that tribal knowledge that we were talking about before, sort of here's what's written down. Here's where there's a strong recommendation, a soft recommendation. And so out of that work, we've begun a plan for how, you know, crawling community building plan for some of the important topics, like how frequently there will be calls and how we intend to run those. And, you know, you guys know as well as anyone. So those are sort of the quick primer to try to get everyone on to the same page. Are there any questions or comments on those areas before we move on to the note from Dave, Eniert? I don't see any hand being raised, so I assume not. So, yes. So thank you Steve for doing this. So I hope that clarifies where things stand from the point of view. And so, yes indeed. So there was an email sent by Dave, Eniert, to the mailing list. And I'm going to turn to him to give him a chance to explain what this is about so that those who may not have seen the email or want to have a re-ash can get that. Okay. Yeah, this is Dave Eniert. I can do that. So hopefully most of you have read the email that has a lot of the core content, but I wanted to highlight a few things here. So there's been a lot of excitement about a new project in the multi-party systems base and I think for a good reason. But I think the desire to announce something quickly has overshadowed some of the due diligence that we'd like to pursue. The proposal was actually pretty rushed from the start, even in the first discussion there was an artificial deadline given for a vote. I'm not going to say no to Firefly if it comes to a vote, but I am saying let's slow down a little bit and consider a few aspects that may contribute to the project's long-term success. So I've got four main points here, so bear with me. First, let's look under the covers at what is actually in the Firefly and the smart client contributions and let's consider how they complement each other and the possibilities for convergence. For example, Firefly focuses on messaging, eventing, and connectivity while smart client focuses on cross-organization business processes, agreements, and private views of the business processes and data. These aspects of the smart client are actually the LT agnostic. There's a different layer for the views versus the fabric connectivity. And I think multi-party systems for off-chain exchange will need all of these capabilities. Therefore, there's an opportunity to take the best ideas from both sides while the projects are still young and malleable. Second, Steve had proposed the project being umbrella for various technologies. That's actually what got us thinking about coexistence and convergence with the smart client. I think we need to understand how an umbrella project would work, especially when all the maintainers would be coming from Kaleido. I know there's other sponsors, but I think all the maintainers would be from Kaleido. If we don't consider what the umbrella project would look like, we probably would end up with a Frankenstein project or something that serves the needs of one organization. Third, the single organization concern was raised last week. And it seemed like those concerns were brushed aside with the idea that we'd go find some other names to put on the project as sponsors and contributors. But I think there's actually an opportunity for a true collaboration on a true cross-organization project here with maintainers from multiple organizations. So I think we should slow down and explore that rather than settling on a single organization-driven project. And then fourth, one of the reasons given for the full project status versus continuing as a lab has been the maturity of the contributions and the number of developers. So I took a look at the Firefly Commits. And what I saw was that last fall, there was a TypeScript implementation written by Gabriel. And that's being replaced by a Go implementation written by Peter in the last month. I didn't really see evidence of fixed releases or anything like that that would suggest a level of production support and maturity. I'm not saying it's not there, but I think we'd want to understand the Kaleido team's view on that. So ultimately, I think until those aspects are sorted out, I think it's premature to have a vote on the proposal. I'd like to take our time and consider convergence in a true cross-organization project while the projects incubate in labs. I really don't see any downsides with taking a more deliberative approach like that. I therefore like to make a motion to table the proposal until we can really fully consider those different aspects. Okay. All right. So thank you, Dave. Gary, as you stand up. So I think so on a few things. So I think, you know, I mean, obviously Dave has some good analysis in there on a couple of parts on, you know, I think some good points on, you know, fast tracking, et cetera. But I do question the look, I guess everybody knows this by now, right? But I don't work for IBM anymore. So, but I was there, right? When, you know, fabric smart client or whatever, you know, was sort of coming out. So two things on that. One, like it is kind of fabric specific right now. I'm not saying it couldn't change, but it is fabric specific. And I think Dave, you know, I mean, to be honest, like if somebody asked me to bring it, somebody could have overridden us, but I don't think that it was ready to be, you know, put out as a project under, you know, the fabric, you know, I think it would have gone under the fabric umbrella, just given the fact that it goes up with fabric, it's called fabric smart client. So I think, you know, labs would seem like a suitable place for it, right? Given. Yeah, I agree. I think that makes sense. It's just I think the same thing applies to both projects. Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I think, yeah, I guess I don't know if, you know, Firefly would ever need to go as a lab project, right? I don't think that that's necessarily, you know, where it goes. I get your point on the other part, right? I don't think that it's, I don't think that there's a necessarily a thing that says you go from lab to incubator, right? I guess if you're saying that if they want to have it under hyperledger, you prefer a lab, you know, versus an incubator, but No, actually what I said is I'd prefer us consider the convergence before making it a project. Right. But I guess I'd say this, I don't understand how they can converge. Firefly and smart client are actually two different things. Well, like I said, this Firefly has the good messaging and event layers, whereas a smart client has this whole view layer with the business process flows across organizations, that's actually separate from the fabric connectivity. So that's the piece I'm thinking could come in. Sure. But I guess, yeah, I mean, I'm not gonna let others talk, right? But I guess if that's like, you know, a way that people want to contribute, I guess I would say this, I don't know why that would have to happen before something else could happen, right? I mean, you know, if there was bad behavior, and you know, people didn't, you know, accept poll requests that that showed how to leverage that functionality and extend things, then I think that would be, you know, you know, a problem, right? But I think it'll be easier to sort out beforehand, because otherwise you're dealing with a project that only has collido maintainers and who knows what would happen in that scenario. Well, I mean, most certainly, you know, look, if that's an exception that's out there, most certainly people can add somebody else as a maintainer, right? As a prerequisite in that. I mean, I think I'm actually a maintainer on transact and a few other things, right? And I wasn't in the original side of it, right? I think it was just I was looking at it, right? And when transact came in, as an example, we thought we might be able to, you know, leverage it with fabric, I'm not bashing transact here, it just turned out as you know, you were part of that analysis, we didn't go forward with that, right? So if there's a request to have somebody else as a maintainer who's willing to be a maintainer, that's actually my request. See, anyway, I'll stop. Sorry. I saw GM has raised his hand, so I don't want to give him a chance to speak up too. So was that your main point, Gary, you're done? Yeah, I'm done. Yeah, I don't know what my main point was. I had several in there, but I'm done anyway. Yes. Okay. All right, Jim. Thanks, Arnold. I definitely agree that there's a lot of interesting design ideas. I actually pointed out the view idea of capturing member specific logic as a construct, which is interesting. And apparently that is the main generic piece that's in the Fabric Smart Client, which, as Angela pointed out, is developed so that fabric can be much easier to get adopted. I think growing from that to become a multi-poral call focused on not blockchain first, but multi-party system first, design philosophy may actually take quite some time to evolve, whereas Firefly is a completely different thing. It's multi-party first. It's designed from get go to solve multi-party systems, and blockchain is one piece in the puzzle. It's not a blockchain first idea. So to sort of bundle the two together and say we need to evolve together is somewhat arbitrary, and I don't agree that that is the right path to take. Those are very different things. On the other hand, I do agree with the concern that, well, will this project be dominated with Clido? We definitely want to do anything we want to avoid the conception that this will be a Clido-dominated project. I think that's a recipe for disaster, and we've seen that happening with other projects, so please help us avoid that. If the IBM team is truly passionate about this space, we would love to welcome their contribution. I think so far we've demonstrated our willingness to work with everybody based on our discussions, based on our willingness to reach out to everybody who has all the discussions. So I don't know what else we can do to demonstrate that we're not here to demonstrate a project. Okay. Thank you, Jim. But let me ask you one thing, though. I mean, I see you guys, along with Angelo, you've been trying to respond to one another quite a bit, asking questions and string back and forth. And it seems like there is something to be gained from everybody to have that discussion going on. And other than the obvious desire and understand of the Clido team to be done with these proposals getting accepted, what's the downside of Dave's proposal to take a bit more time to work out and better understand where there is a connection if there isn't, if there is one and possible convergence? Jim? I just don't, I think even Dave totally recognized that the need for a project like a multi-party system. So far, Farfley is exactly what the community wants. And they came in from a pretty different angle. And we appreciate that, especially with their expertise on fabric, which is still the more dominant protocols in terms of usage. So we would love to work with them on making this success. But I would encourage everyone to evaluate Farfley on his own merit and recognize that smart client, as it is today, is just a very different thing. So in terms of understanding what Farfley does, I hope everybody through the past four weeks of discussions and both on this call and offline have got a good enough understanding. I know Angelo has some questions and which I clarified this morning. I don't know that if majority of the TSCs still felt or it's still premature, which based on my observation is not the case. I don't know if Steve or Sophia or Peter wants to try. No, no, but it's okay. We can thank you. That's good enough. And I saw Gary raised his hand. Hopefully, we can get an assessment of where the TSC can stand before the end of this call one way or another anyway. So I don't know where, you know, personally, I don't know where people stand. So I wouldn't claim to know. Let's get to Gary. Yeah, just two sort of quick things, right? So look, I think, you know, I see on one side, you know, it is a little bit, you know, I will say it's a little bit odd in terms of, you know, that we were setting a timing or whatever. But on the other side of it, right? Like Arneau, you know, I don't necessarily like to see things like lag forever, right? So if there, you know, if there's, you know, real things that we want to get the decision. So Dave has a clear perspective, which is great, right? And I think that's awesome, right? He's asserted a point of view. And, you know, at least we know where it stands, I think, you know, it would be good to find out where others stand and what their sort of concerns are outside of process type concerns, right? There are a few objective things that have to be done. And I think those are being sort of handled right before it can be in there. And then as we've discussed, some things are subjective. And I guess I'll just sort of mention, you know, a couple things, right? A couple of other things additionally, right? I think, you know, to a degree, right, we've decided whether it was explicitly, implicitly or just by whatever, right? That, you know, there can be things that do the same thing. I don't think the Firefly and Smart Client do do the same thing. Of course, yeah, proper stuff could figure out how to exploit both capabilities together. I like the two layers together. It doesn't mean that we have to make them all come together at first. And again, I'll just go back to, we didn't do that with Transact, right? You know, hey, you know, we may have it work with fabric, right? And we sponsored and have this stuff in there, but we didn't say, hey, you have to prove that it does, right? Or let's let's let's vet out that this is going to be the case when it comes in, right? It turned out after the fact, right, that we've had the case, we did our diligence and it just didn't work out, right? So I guess we've had examples, right, of kind of projects kind of, you know, coming forward like that, right? With potential, you know, integration or convergence, you know, on the table. But those explorations happened after a project came in, per se. So that's it for me. Goodbye. Thank you, Gary. Jim, you still have your hand up. You wanted to add something? Sorry, just forgot to lower it. Okay, not cool. I just wanted to check. All right, so anyone else? I don't see any other hand up. So we actually got a motion from Dave to table this off. Is that something we should consider? Angelo? Yeah, Dave, maybe I can say a few words given also what the other have said, not in defense of the smart, the smart, the fabric smart client. That's not, it would be unfair to do that. But I want to point out the fact that Gary agreed with Dave that both proposals are early stages. So that's, and he didn't deny that. So I want to stress this point. And also I want to say that at the end of the day, from my point of view, here we are at the TSC, which is called technical selling committee for enterprise blockchains. So I ask all the members of the TSC to evaluate any proposal from this point of view, from the technical point of view, with the regards of the enterprise blockchains. I put many comments on the proposal there, especially one that shocks me is that at the end of the day, Firefly is using blockchain as a time stamping service, which is like saying, okay, let's use the New York Times to post the hashes. What else more? It's undeniable that Jim used, you also commented that there are pieces of the design that are not complete. So we don't even know if there will be this possibility. So there will be this dream that Firefly is putting on the table that I find beautiful. But we don't know if this will be realized. So, I mean, just to put something just to square a few things. Thanks, Al. All right. Thank you, Angel. So I see more hands up now. Haught. Yeah. So I guess I just have a couple of questions. These are mostly sort of for the TSC. I mean, some of this is, you know, how do we envision projects working, right? In the past, we've sort of had, you know, we've had certainly different projects that attempt to solve either the same or the similar problem, right? I mean, we have sort of three core DLTs that, you know, have a lot of overlapping functionalities. So, you know, maybe there's room for multiple projects in this space, right? I guess as a TSC, we should clarify, you know, sort of sort of our philosophy on this. I hope that makes sense. All right. Thank you, Haught, for bringing this up. It touches actually something that's dear to me that, you know, I've been muddling over over the last couple of weeks now is, you know, when I first heard about the Collider project, I thought, oh, this is interesting. This is raising the level, you know, at which we are focusing above the level we have been living in in hyperledger with all the different frameworks and related tools. And I thought, okay, and they want to be multi protocol, which is an opportunity to have finally a point of convergence, which, you know, we don't have in currently, and we have all these different frameworks, which, you know, at the end of the day, a lot of them are competing with one another, no matter how we spin it. And we keep lamenting about the lack of collaborations between different projects. And it doesn't matter how much we wish it were different. It's not. And I have to say, I'm a bit saddened by the turn of event that I'm seeing now, where we would, we already have two projects now that are playing in the same kind of space. And we are saying, well, it doesn't matter. We're not going to take the time to see if there is a way to converge, because, you know, and I'm not completely sure what the rush is. I mean, I understand the conference, but I honestly don't think the conference should be playing a factor in how the TSE makes decisions. And I feel very strongly about that. You know, if the conference wasn't there, would we still trying to be making a decision so quickly? Or should we, or would we actually take the time to have better discussions? And so I, you know, I hate to see the possibility that we are forgoing right of the bad, the possibility of having convergence in that new space, where I think the industry would definitely benefit from having a common solution rather than yet another layer at which we have competing projects. So I'll shut up on this and go to the queue. Jim. Yeah. Thanks, Hart, for offering that aspect. May need more discussions on that. But I want to respond to Angelou's comment. I guess two things. One is I clarify the exact features that Firefly has abstracted blockchains to be, and there's a list of four. Time stamping is not even on the list because you don't need data immutability assurance with blockchain. You can achieve that with just multiple, multi signatures. But it is an intrinsic property. We would inherit for using blockchain for sure. So time stamping is definitely not one of those that is key to the Firefly's abstraction for blockchain. So the fourth feature specifically, and by the way, this was in the email I sent earlier, is global ordering, atomic broadcast, the guarantee of double spend protection slash global uniqueness and event publishing. So just want to be specific that the philosophy of Firefly is we're looking at all blockchains as equal because that's our experience with customers. We've rarely seen a project that mandates a particular blockchain because they have specific requirements that only one blockchain fulfills. Majority of the projects, it doesn't really matter which one you pick. It's mostly a skills call, which are you more comfortable with? Which do you understand better? So that's one aspect. The other is in terms of the maturity of the project, it is true that all of our generation two code is coming out out of the Clidoteam in the past two months. But I clarified this in my email from last night. The current version, which is in production with multiple large consortiums, Clidocustomers has been in development for almost a year. And if you count the critical piece of ETHConnect, it's three years. So I just don't want the the TSC to get an impression that it's premature technology. All right. Thank you, Jim. Steve. Just a quick one back on the maintainers topic. Just for the record, we'd be really thrilled to take on other maintainers. And maybe it makes sense, specifically with the FabricSmart contract project. If someone like Dave would be willing to, we'd be enthusiastic about that. Honestly, this is not a real issue to me. I mean, as it was hinted on, most projects are heavily managed by a single company. That's just the reality we're in. So you wouldn't be much different from everybody else in this regard. I think there's a bit of a difference in fact that you were not even open source before you came here with that proposal. But you've got to start at some point, I suppose. So let's not drill on that. I don't think it's relevant. But thanks for the offer. I mean, typically projects have some kind of policy on how you become a maintainer. And it was just all people volunteer right off the bat. So I don't think it's actually proper to do it that way either. And even though it may have been done like we heard from Gary. Brian. And so just to clarify, on that point, I've got a few others, but Arno, you don't think it's a bad thing if their initial roster of maintainers is mostly or entirely Kaleido employees. That's not a mark against their proposal as a full project. Well, that's the way it is. I mean, we're not even open source. I don't know how it could be different. This is a proprietary software that just. Well, they actually did, there's somebody from Akado who has been part of the proposal. I don't think they itemized their maintainers list, but they've been working with their customers on this stuff before. So let me do a little bit of a mad culpa on this too. Partly related to, obviously, we talked with them before they published their proposal. And there was never a deadline, right? When we talked with them, we said, hey, there is Hyperledger Global Forum coming up. In terms of timing of getting the word out about maybe submitting a proposal to the TSC, it would be nice. And this was us telling them that to do this by Hyperledger Global Forum so that we could use that as a place to talk about the project and start the community building process. And so now I'm worried inadvertently, in what was intended to be, this is a way to really get some awareness of this that turned into a perception that there was some sort of gambit that they would walk away from the proposal if it wasn't accepted by Global Forum or something like that, which has never been the case from my understanding and was never the impression I got. So I think I just want to do a mad culpa on that. And then secondly, on the convergence front, happening in a parallel thread to all this has been this really healthy set of conversations between the Cactus team. And remember Cactus is still very young. It's deployed in production in a couple places or pilots at least, but it's still pretty young compared to fabric and even Bezu and those sorts of things. And this new lab came in called Weaver, which does a lot of the same things. And because it's a lab, we didn't say anything was wrong with that or have these same kinds of issues, but they were going very much on their own path. And they did present here the TSC, which was really good. And then the third kind of group surfaced with another approach to interoperability between blockchains, a company called Data Chain in Japan, and their lab has now commenced something called UE. And when I saw this happening, I said, why don't we get together and talk about how these three efforts, even though one's a project and one's a lab and one's not even inbound yet, might work together and converge or at least usefully differentiate out there. And that spawned this really nice conversation happening in the architecture working group and a comparison document. And thank you to Hart and others who've been helpful in facilitating that conversation. My point is that convergence kind of thing, it's very natural that we start from different points, even when we're solving the same problem. It's very natural that we have different ideas and unsightly different programming languages that we use to implement things that also can become a barrier to this kind of convergence. But there's nothing magic about that convergence conversation happening as labs before they become projects or after or anything like that. I don't know that there's, you know, pressure on a lab to do this before becoming a project, nor is there, once it's a project, any, you know, lessening of the interest in convergence, if there's some benefit from that. So I would try to tease that apart from whether the question of whether a proposal should be accepted as a project. All right. Thank you, Brian. But it's interesting you talk about cactus because cactus did start as a lab because they are two different companies with two different ideas. And they went to a lab to work it out to come up with the common plan. And that's only when they came to the TSC to start the project. But those are also databases that weren't in production anywhere. And this was the part when we talked with them earlier that, you know, one of the things the TSC looks for is is this code? How mature is the code? Has it been running in lots of places? You know, at least that was my impression of one of the things that mattered to the TSC when it comes to evaluating whether something is, you know, it would mark in its favor. Honestly, we've approved things as projects that aren't in production, things like cactus or transact, but that would be a vote in its favor. And there is a very big difference between where where Firefly is now. I'll say again, I did not see any release history with Firefly either V1 or V2. Maybe it's just not there. It's not as an open source project. True. Exactly. So we don't know, Brian. I mean, that's the point. You can't just, you know, so let's see. We have other people on the queue. Please let's go to the queue. And there are many people who haven't expressed themselves at all that I'd like to hear from. So please speak up. I see on the TSC channel some people are chatting. I encourage you to speak up and we're quickly running out of time. So let's get to it. Gary. Yes, I was just going to go on your same point, right? I mean, it seems like we can circle around this, right? I mean, Dave put a motion out there, right? You know, people could vote and say like the TSC could decide that we wanted to see like integration beforehand. I don't know, but I don't know that that but nobody's saying anything, right? So I don't know that that's the case, right? I'll just leave it at I don't think it makes sense. I don't think they're the same project. I don't think they're the same thing. And this is I would have said this, you know, either way, right? I don't. So I don't get that. But again, right? That's one person saying I'm one person saying it, you know, the project, Jim and team is saying it and Dave has Dave and, and Angelo have his perspective. So we have a motion from Dave, which was to, you know, put this on hold. Then there's a secondary thing that we're talking having a discussion amongst like six of us, which is about sorry, I don't log into rocket chat. I can't stand rocket chat. So I'm not on it. But okay, well, that's what really, but, but right. Anyway, so to your point, right? And then, you know, there was, you know, Dave was proposing that, you know, we, you know, saying, Hey, we should hit one of his things in there, we should see if we can reconcile the projects. So maybe that's a combined emotion, right? So, okay, let's let's get it. That's fine. Gary, let's leave it at this for now. I think you made your point. I'd like to try and get us moving before we ran out of time. So Jim, what do you have to add? Sorry, I was distracted by the TSC chat. Yeah. If there are, there are questions about the release history of the closed source base code base, we can show that in fact, I was actually including a snapshot of the contributors and the history of the old private repo, but it just messed up the format of the email. So I deleted it. But if people are interested, we can invite you to the to the code repository doing inspection and let us know, right? What's missing there? I'm sorry. What is the question? I was addressing the question from David that we don't know what the release history is. And we can, we also have on the sponsor list, Dr. Schmidt. He is one of our customers using this technology. Hi guys. Honestly, I don't think we need to go down to this level of details. These kind of things, everybody is throwing everything into the kitchen sink now. Let's not get buried into all these details. Every project has some oddities and some unknown and whatever. I don't think it helps the discussion to focus on those things. Sorry, Angelo. Oh, very, very, very small thing. Just to say that if you say ordering, you are saying time stamping. If you say that you don't need the mutability, that you don't need a blockchain. So therefore, what are you talking about? And I want to stress again that Gary didn't deny that the two proposals are just a starting, starting thing. Thank you. All right. Yes. Get in line, buddy. Well, Dave had motion to table it and I would second the motion to table it for a minimum of two months. All right. Well, you cannot amend the motion per se. And my intent is that it would be for two months. So I'll second it without amendment. Okay. All right. So I guess we will call for a vote then. At least this will give us some clarification as to where people stand. So there's a motion to table this up by at least two months. Or two months exactly. I don't know. It's like, basically, it's like, do you want to give ourselves a bit more time to figure things out? What is the right way forward? If you're confused, that gives you an option to get things clarified. And so can I clarify my motion? Okay. So I said a lot of things up front. I think my main point is how do we get some, I mean, people are right that these projects are different, but they do have complementary features, I think. And so my main point that I would like to put on the motion for tabling is, how do we get the concept of business processes and views, organization-specific views converged into Firefly? And that's why I would like to table it. So I'd like to table it until we have a comeback on how we could bring that type of concept into Firefly. So what you're saying is you want to modify the project proposal to include things that they didn't. What was that? Sorry, I didn't get it. I think I would be okay with either a comeback on how we can include this concept of business cross-organization business processes and views into Firefly, or how we can make Firefly a true umbrella project where these different things can work together. I think either of those, I'd be satisfied with either of those, and that's why I would like to table it so that we can have a comeback on that issue. I'm only seconding of an end of table, so if someone wants to second the modification, go for it. I see that there's some robust discussion in chat. Yeah, so we need a clear motion that has been seconded so we can have a vote. Otherwise, we're stuck guys, and we have nine minutes left. Do we have two people who agree that they wanted to table it or not? I can't tell. I think we should table it. We already had two of that, so we can just leave it at this for now, but I agree with the sentiment that it's nicer to have a goal set while we're tabling it off. I mean, my understanding is people want to have a clearer picture on what's the best way forward, which would involve investigating whether there is a convergence path. And if in two months, people come back and say, well, there isn't. Maybe that's totally a reasonable outcome, and then at least the TSC would have a clearer picture that's, okay, we can approve this project on its own because there is no conflict or convergence possible. And that's kind of where the way I hear it. Daniel? I mean, yeah, we need to have more time. I think when you have a separate email list or a separate chat room to discuss these, because there's a lot of parallel issues going on. And I think they're resolvable and I don't think they need to have perfect resolution. But I think, you know, hashing is out over two months will get people more comfortable saying, yes, this is a good project. Okay, so Tracy, thank you. Sorry. I know you wanted to call the vote, but if there's issues that need to be resolved, we need to document those issues, right? We need to be very clear on what it is that we're proposing. We need to say these are the things that need to be handled before we would reconsider. And I, you know, I feel like we've had a lot of discussions, but I'm not sure that I know what we're, what we're waiting on, right? And what's going to happen in the time that we're waiting to make sure that if convergence is the piece that we're focused on, is it resolution of the fact that these things are two separate things and they could, you know, both progress on their own? I just don't understand what we're waiting on. And so we really need to document all the issues are so that they can be resolved. All right. Thank you, Tracy. Fair enough. But I think Dave at least try to clarify, he wants to have time to see if there is a convergence path. That was his motion. Sophia. Hi, Sophia. Yeah, I'm just getting off me here in the room. I think Dave's most recent statement was that sort of acknowledging that people are seeing these as different projects. And I think he just most recently said is looking for a discussion around a complementary area, which I think gets to what Brian was saying. There's no reason we can't do that between, you know, projects in the lab. So I really sort of second, second, some of it's Tracy's sentiments getting pretty confusing as to what the real issue is here. I will say it's beginning to look a little bit, you know, just putting out the elephant in the room here. Hyperledger often gets conflated with fabric. And it feels like there's a fabric project that wants to put the brakes on another project to talk about something that is a different project and approach started in a different area. It's multi protocol, different philosophy to, you know, for one small area that Dave acknowledges could be complimentary. And there's already we'd welcome Dave as a maintainer would welcome all of you points. I think actually it's very positive. We've gotten a lot of outreach from Avalon your other projects who are really excited. So I'm not sure what it would just seem like, you know, IBM fabric team has, you know, something they pop up with, I guess, and a lot some ad hominem statements against intention. So I'm glad, Brian, you jumped in and and in others who've made comments. So it's I think just an optics perspective. It's just a little strange. Okay, I appreciate your point of view. But I think that's honestly not really cool for this point. We have heard from many different people from different organizations. Peter is next. Thank you. I just wanted to say quick note. I put this in TSC chat as well that if the TSC decides that it would be favorable to do some sort of exploration process for convergence, then I'm happy to volunteer some of my time from the side of CACCC help facilitate that we've been doing something similar already with the two new labs. Anyway, just wanted to put that down as an FYI. Okay, thank you. So I'll make the motion that we table this off for two months with the goal in two months to have a clearer picture as to whether convergence is possible or not. And then we'll reassess whether the path forward is through convergence of some kind, or we should just, you know, have fireflies stand on its own because there is no convergence to talk about. I'll second that motion. All right, so can we have a second? I propose that this is a roll call vote. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Angela, do you have a comment on the motion? I second. No, no, wait. Sorry, because there was already a second, Angelo. There was a second from Dave. And we have three minutes left, so hot. So quick comment. Before we vote on this, can we get guarantees from all these stakeholders that there will be an effort at convergence? Yes. I mean, guys, we're going to be running out of time with no decision, which I think is the worst. That was my question. I'm done. Okay, I understand. That's a good point. But, you know, if there's no will to even investigate this, then I think it gives people who are concerned even more, you know, reason to be concerned. So what is a no vote? Sorry, what is what is a no vote? What does saying no to table it mean, mean that we don't Well, we should make a decision. And since we're running out of time, the next thing would be to vote on whether we then approve it or not. But it's going to be physically impossible in two minutes left. We could why I'm getting agitated here because I'm trying to drive us to a decision. That vote could happen on the mailing list as well. Yeah, maybe we'll have to do that. So let's see if we have to table a lot or not. At least we can get through this in one minute. So let's go to the roll call quick. Hey, Angelo. I second. No, you have to say yes at this point. Okay, Arno. Yes, Arun. Abstain. Oh, wow. Yes, Bobby. Yes, Daniel. Yes, David. Yes, Gary. No, Grace. Yes, Hart. Abstain. Maria. Yes. Yes. Mark. No. Nathan. Abstain. Tracy. No. Troy. Abstain. Okay. All right. So I don't know the exact count, but it seems like it is the motion is passed. I need to go count and we're out of time. So I will say everyone, you can send the outcome, but there was there was seven between no and abstain. So however many others left was probably yes. I think I got eight. Yes, 15 people. And three no's or something like this. There's three no's and four abstains, I think. So the motion passes. To the next time to find out the results. All right, people. I'm sorry. I'm sure some people were disappointed, but I hope this, you know, we can all work together to try to figure out a better way forward. So with that being said, you know, thank you all for joining with a full house today. So I take it that people have taken this seriously, which I appreciate. And we'll be talking about, we'll talk about again next week during the conference and otherwise in two weeks. Thank you all for joining. Goodbye. Thanks, Arnaud.