 All right, welcome everybody to the October 20th technical oversight committee call. As you are probably all aware, the next foundation calls are held under an antitrust policy. So here's the notice of that if you have any sort of questions, contact. Let's see, Andrew up to grow from the firm guess more up to grow or your legal console. The other thing that we must abide by on these calls is the code of conduct, which is linked in our agenda. So we have two announcements today. The first one is one that you've heard many, many times before the Dev Weekly developer newsletter goes out each Friday to hundreds of hyperledger developers. If you have anything that you would like to include in that. Please leave a comment on the wiki page that is linked in the agenda. The second announcement that we have is that the TOC nomination period is open. The nomination does close October 31st end of day. If you would like to be considered to be elected or appointed to the TOC, please. Follow the process of the nomination process that is linked there in the agenda. Any other announcements that anybody has. No, okay. So we did get the fabric report in a few days back, and we also got the tech that report in last night. So I didn't see any specific comments coming in on the fabric one. Let me just reload that page here for myself to make sure. There are no comments yet, but there are quite a few outstanding reviews that need to happen. As far as the cacti one, I don't think anything has occurred there either. No comments yet. So we'll leave these both on the agenda for next week. But does anybody have any questions on those two reports before we move forward. Okay. And then just a reminder if anybody knows anybody who might be willing to put together the Ursa report. We are still waiting on that report to come in. We don't have any reports that are due next week. The next one that's upcoming is the sawtooth report that's due on the 27th. So I guess it is due next week, but yet we will probably have it until the 27th. We don't have any additional ones on the agenda for next week to review. All right. So with that, we do have one discussion item today. It is the non-creds project proposal. I have seen some comments coming through on the actual for request and Stephen has made updates as those have come in. But at this point I'm going to hand the floor to Stephen to see if he wants to take us through that or if he would like us just to start to comment on that. Okay, hang on a second. I was going to. So we've, we've spent the last couple of weeks putting together the proposal. Can I share screen? Of course. Yes. Oh, I see. I've tried. It's funny. I'm trying to start my video as well. We don't do that here. Okay, hang on. Let me move one more thing. So, let's see, there's the. This is largely, so we've been working on this as a community for the last several weeks. So I presented about a month ago to the TOC to the TSC then to TOC now. And since then have been soliciting soliciting input, putting together a skeleton proposal and then getting input from the community. So what you're seeing here is that input converted over. We have. It's essentially the, what I presented in a presentation a month ago. So I don't think you want me to repeat this presentation here with all of what is largely the same. I made a couple of tweaks to the slides just to provide updated data. I do have a couple of updates since then. We had at the time I talked to this group. I would we were just heading into the rebooting web of trust. For those not familiar with that rebooting web of trust brings together a number of identity, people in the identity community. And, and SSI community, it's Christopher Allen organizes it so SSI is definitely the focus at that almost everybody that participates submits a proposed paper to work on at the conference. And at the start of the conference, though, the ones to be actually worked on are narrowed down to a smaller list of things that people want to work on. And on creds, despite the fact that in addition to the shirt I'm wearing that I got from the Hyperledger global forum I managed to get COVID and so was not able to attend the our law conference the paper that I submitted did get worked on. I was very positive. And, and so I worked sort of on the side on that on on another paper but in the meantime another group continued to work on the and on credits paper, as I submitted it and continue to work on the specification and working on it so that was really good. A lot of progress was made actually there on the impact of ledger agnostic and on credits and this, and what is the genesis of this whole idea of moving and on credits out of Indy. Because an on credits can be used pretty easily in fact with different storage locations publication locations. And continued work on the ledger agnostic and on credits. We had a number of new contributors to the non credit specification itself. So that was really good outcome from that we had had a pile of new pull request put in and and new contributors that are continuing to work on it. And as well we came up with an approach for putting an on credits into the W3C verifiable credential standard data model and this was somewhat of a surprise was not expecting that quite frankly when I, when I talked to this group. A month ago, that was not really on my agenda we had some talks at the conference and discovered that, wait, this isn't very difficult to do. And since then have implemented a first draft of that where basically taking an on credits, as it stands today and just putting it into the W3C verifiable for data credential data model such that it can be moved back and forth in either production and, and yet still processed exactly the way and on credits is intended to work. So that that's some exciting and interesting things that have happened, even in the last month. As I mentioned creation, evolution of the hip. And then just gathering stated support for the proposal to move an on credits out of its own project. So that's the things that have happened since then, as I say I've got this presentation that I gave a month ago and I suspect you don't want me to go through that again. I think everyone on the call was, was that that previous meeting so that's the material that I had thought of preparing and I did get a number of comments from from to see members and appreciate that. I think I've addressed them the only one that I did not specifically add a level of detail to was the question of link secrets and I do have a slide here on link secrets if, if we want to talk about that and deep dive into that. I just thought for the proposal it's going quite deep into it. And I'm happy to add it but I didn't think it was necessary appropriate for the proposal so that's where I got to, and we've got to as a community. So, looks like Nathan Tracy I'll turn it back to you and then let you handle the questions and organization. Thanks, Steven. And thanks for letting us know what's been updated and changed since we last spoke. Nathan. When this idea first came up I was really worried about whether it would dilute some of the work going on in the community. And I think Steven deserves a lot of credit for all his work cultivating the contributor base on this proposal. And if you look at who's said they're sponsoring or supporting the list is a lot more extensive than I expected. And it just looks like it's setting up to be a really good improvement to take advantage of not only better decomposition of how, you know, all of the identity is organized hyper ledger but also to help get more community contributors excited so thanks Steven for all the great work on the proposal. I'm pretty excited about what I'm seeing here. All right. It definitely is an impressive list. Any comments or questions on the proposal. Peter. I was just curious as the, is there an implementation also that will move out of Indie or is it just the standard. No, there is an implementation. So there's two implementations in Indie right now. The plan is to take one of those which is called for lack of a better term the developer made credits. And that will be basically what we'll do is we will split. And I'm hoping someone knows to get have magic because we don't want to lose any history but basically split a repo into two. One will remain with Indie and will have the non creds part of it removed one will move to the non creds project should it be created and have the Indie parts removed. So the history will hopefully be maintained in both, and then we'll move forward with that with the two repositories so the non creds is, as I said it's already been used in a number of ways. There are places to implement non Indian on credits and this will will then evolve that implementation to formalize the separation of the non credits processing the implementation of the specification from the storing and retrieving of an on credits objects from a verifiable data registry. So that's the that's the plan for the software. No, it's very much software. Thanks, Tracy. Hey, Steven. So thanks for addressing the questions on the GitHub, and quick follow up on that. So this proposal looks looks really good. And this is kind of a project that would bring in more participation and it aligns well with building those reusable components are building those pluggable components that would allow us to utilize or give flexibility to consider the end users right and quick question on the implementation aspect. I know in the proposal you mentioned that they can be a close source or open source or you can call it the components that deal with VDR right the the VDR part those can be either close source or the open source parts. So within hyper ledger you specifically mentioned about fabric and visual, and I'm just curious if you have identified people who will be working on that or is it that you'll be working with those fabric and visual teams in coming up with the solution so how is that in plan. So the fabric, a fabric implementation has been done. So there's a member of the community. A team that did a fabric implementation. Again, just based on what was already in in the library so that's been implemented but without benefit of the, the proper decomposition if you will. So the expectation is that will be updated and modified. The Ethereum one, quite frankly is speculation that we came up with at at our watt but there was a number of people talking there that that speculated that Ethereum is likely a, and particularly with the, the, the recent speculation that that Ethereum had that makes it a pretty good possibility of it so that was more speculation but but my expectation is with the strong push right now in identity and and the interest in identity SSI style identity decentralized and verifiable data quite frankly. I think it is a, a likely strong combination so that is more speculative versus the fabric one where somebody is actually already done an implementation and it would be moving that implementation. Does that make sense. Yep, thanks to you. And then of course, there's people like checked that have their own ledger they're likely to put their implementation in their own repose checked I believe is is open source so those will be open source ones but I could envision others doing a proprietary one and and and where the where the close source might come in but but quite frankly, that's for them to provide to people so that they can you make use of an on credits on their platform if that's what they want to do. Got it. Probably, I know, somewhere, I remember reading in the proposal but just for completeness sake of this argument. And so there is areas community also involved and willing to adopt an on credit. Yes. Absolutely. So these has most of the frameworks in areas already have not all but most have a non credit support. And this change will be relatively minor more or less it will be dependencies within within the frameworks themselves and so should not affect business logic and really is just part would be part of a minor upgrade. For any of the areas frameworks and that's the certainly the implementation plan and interest of the community. Thanks to you and all the best looking forward to. All right, thank you, Dan. So this is a bit more of a commentary than an actual question. This aligns with something that's happening in some of the Ethereum layer two spaces they're calling a modular blockchain, breaking out these modules and reusing and everywhere. So in general, I view this as a positive development for the for the identity space that there's a Lego brick you can plug in wherever you need it's consistent reusable. So, good job. Excellent. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on the proposal. Anybody have any objections that they would like to bring up any concerns that they would like to bring up. I just want to reconfirm I think it is written out in a spec but Indy will continue to function with non credits and will be continually kept up to date with how non credits evolves in the API is with it, correct. Absolutely. Yes. So what we think is by expanding, you know, the basic strategy from an indie perspective is by expanding the user base of a non creds by by removing roadblocks from from the adoption of, of a non creds. It's down for, okay, where do we want to host are an on credits objects in the will be a an excellent choice. And so it's a sort of rising, rising tide floats all boats strategy from an indie perspective. Okay, any other comments concerns. We have an opportunity before we call for a vote so if you do have anything that you're holding on to hoping that this is going to go on till next week. Now is your time to speak. I was talking about her service raised. If it's a good time. If I can talk to someone in our team and help with reports that I can help with reports, but only if I have enough data to actually help. Awesome. Okay, please contact me and I'll be available every day essentially. Could you put your own chat is disabled. Yes, to me. Use the use the discord to see channel chat. Okay. Yeah. Stephen, I would contact you right. Yes. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any, any final comments, questions, concerns, objections. Let's just do it. Okay, I guess that's the, are you making a motion there are no. I am very much. Okay, we have a second. All right, thanks for that. All right, so we're now voting to approve the non credits project as a top level project within hyper ledger. Right. Did you want to take us to a vote. Sure. On the matter before the TOC, Angelo. Yes. Or no. Yes. I consent. Yes. Arun. Yes, Bobby. 100% yes. Okay. Yes, I like it. David. Yes. Grace is not here, Jim. Yes, for me. Okay, Kamlesh. Definitely. Yes. Nathan. Yes. Peter. Yes. Tracy. Yes. And Troy is not here. So, you know, it passes. Congratulations, Stephen. Awesome. All right. Well, that was a lot quicker than I thought we'd go through things today. Appreciate that everybody for having reviewed that and came with your questions ready. I wish I had prepared the presentation that I have next week for this particular agenda, but we will be talking with the prune folks next week in the meeting. So before we close out the call, any, any other discussion items that we should talk about today. Everybody just hovering over the leaf button. All right. Well, thanks everybody for joining today and we will meet again next week. Please take time to review the open reports that are out there and have a good week. Thank you.