 Maybe the end. Yeah, potentially. Yeah. All right, let's let's get going. I'll let you know once we hit quorum then. Okay All right, welcome everybody. Good morning. Good evening. Good afternoon Whatever it is wherever you are So on today's agenda we have our usual hackfest planning topic just a reminder of Again, we'd like to get the registration And a draft agenda Going I do have I Haven't done it this morning, but I do have There's a there's a conference going on Concurrent with the hackfest I Was asked to speak and give a keynote But I think there's opportunity for other people to do panels and so forth and I will share the call for participation on the mailing list for that And then Todd you want to Actually, let me just sort of review the rest of the so we have quarterly project updates. We have quilt. I think I saw Adrian on Adrian and then next week is fabric. Oh great They can get somebody else to do And then we have the identity working group Update we will finalize the discussion regarding Achieving 1.0 before leaving incubation. I proposed language. I saw a couple of plus ones, but I didn't see too much traffic So we can finish up that so there would be a vote on that towards the end and then I think Tracy Are you going to be proposing the template for working groups? I Could talk about that. I can talk about it's fun. Okay, and then Dave Who's be with the proposal to make the fabric bug bounty public any other items for the agenda? It's a pretty busy agenda. I did see the The note from the composer team, but The agenda went out before so that'll get that'll get picked up next week. All right So hackfest planning. All right. Thanks, Chris. Just really quickly on this The Amsterdam reminder obviously, but then looking ahead from there There's a couple of potential events. We could co-locate a hackfest with this fall One would be with open source summit North America formerly Linux con Which is gonna be in Vancouver. We could do that right before that event to help with anyone traveling to that and just Kind of pull from that broader community That would be August 27th 28th Another option we will be hosting our annual member summit in Montreal October 3rd and 4th I'm sorry actually October 1st and 2nd and we could co-locate a hackfest piggybacking on to that October 3rd and 4th So we can follow up with a more formal doodle poll for this But just kind of wanted to gauge from those on the call Is there a hunger to host a hackfest in that region in these date ranges? If so, we'll get a doodle out or if there's kind of strong reaction against that definitely let us know as well so My own personal preference would be yes to both member summit Since many of us will be there anyway, and I think it's a good way of also getting other members to participate for the member summit anyway Great. Yeah, and then the one the one other thing I didn't mention in in the van Vancouver option There's a variety of entities there BC.gov and some others that were on the TSC mailing list interested to partner With a variety of things there Chatted with the indie folks as well So other thoughts from the group We had talked about having in the fall something in Asia, so if we had it in October I assume we wouldn't also have one in Asia or we'd still try to have one before the end of the year I don't have a strong opinion Certainly, what suits this community best I mean my point is really if we add one at the end of August Which I'm not especially thrilled about because collides with some vacation plans, but I could possibly do this And the point is, you know, we could still have plenty of time to have another event before the end of the year If we start having an event in October, it's getting pretty much close to the end of the year Yeah, that might be the only one we can squeeze in if we had the hackfest in August in New York I'd be happy because Hmm Okay, um aside from those any other major red flags, otherwise we can get a doodle pull out good Gauge interest fair and then also explore Where we could stack a Asia hackfest in yeah All right Okay, that sounds good All right. Thanks Todd. All right, so Adrian Quilt hey, how are you all doing good my line? Okay? We can I can hear you fine Okay, great. Sorry Wasn't really sure I'm on it. Yes. I want so Quilt has Progress slowly, but I had progressed we had a bit of a I wouldn't say a hiccup but we had to deal with a bit of a change in direction on the core interledger protocol work in late December where there was a bit of a Refactoring or change in their approach. So some of the code we've written had to be refactored quite a bit some So set back a little there Unfortunately, not a huge amount of progress on bringing in new contributors. There's one or two Who are promising and I made some good contributions But in general the goal is to continue adding features to the quilt libraries in the quilt code base to get a feature parity with the JavaScript reference implementation and and we have We're planning to get involved in the upcoming hackfest. We have a Small maintainers kind of face-to-face get together in about two weeks time where we hope to Also push out quite a bit of code to get ourselves to what we would consider a kind of beta level Release and then the only other issue worth pointing out is Interledger has standardized on conditional payments based only on a short 256 hashes And so we we're not using the crypto conditions library at all anymore within interledger But it's it's kind of a useful library with interesting functionality. So I know ripple as a company I'm going to continue using it We're not sure about Effectively a Library for including multi six signatures and and the like So it's probably not the right for not to go into detail what it is But that's something we'd like to resolve whether that maybe there's another high-collegiate project where this fit or Whether the report should just take it on internally and run it as a super cool hosted open source project We come open to Dave and heart is this something that oh Yeah, sorry, I was waiting for hard to jump in here, but So I think the current proposal that we've been emailing about is moving it over into the hyperledger crypto library Projects, which is going into the labs. So Okay, yeah, well do you want to set up some time for us to talk through that code and what it is and like, you know, I mean what what the use cases are and so on and see you know where How best to do that at the moment It's a sub module within so the way the quilt library is set up It's just a single maven repository with a whole bunch of sub modules It's a sub module in there now And we the plan is to pull it out and either put it in its own repo or make a sub module of some other project So whatever whatever makes sense for for you guys Probably not something you need to get into details on this call but if we can go away from this call with Contacts that I can link up with post call to progress that that'd be great. Yep Talk to me or heart or both of us actually so yeah, we can definitely meet and because we're emailing about this that it sounds like the Catalyst for getting the first bit of hyperledger code or hyperledger crypto library code together and get the repo out And all that stuff. Okay. It's a great opportunity I'll Start a mail between the three of us and anyone else is interested Great definitely sounds great Okay, any other questions anything else On quote that anyone's interested in Yeah, so hi Adrienne. This is Arno. So you mentioned a pretty significant change. What was it mostly about? What motivated the change? so interledger Historically had this idea of payments being made through ledgers where the ledger was in within the flow of these interledger packets And that was proving to be a problem because it's very difficult to find ledgers that are performant enough to make that Really work if your payment has to cross multiple ledgers as soon as you have one slow ledger in the in the chain Things break down. So the the model has changed to Make the interledger packet more of an authorization and then to separate out the clearing and settlement So you'll see the way it's modeled now. We call it interledger version 4. I Don't know why we went from one to four. There were a few That never really made the light of day but basically You know in the interledgers as concepts of connectors and ledgers now the interledger packet the past from connected to connector and then Each connector maintains an account with its peers on some ledger But that's not relevant to the protocol itself how they care and settle on that ledger is is separate It's possible to still tie the two together cryptographically, but it's not a requirement Interesting and what is the status from a standardization point of view? You were trying to push that through a ETF. Is that still current? Yeah, so the the specifications around that I've started to stabilize somewhat By that I mean most of the work is now moved on to other sort of the other parts of the stack and so we'll probably Try again in terms of pushing that through a standards process I'm not sure where that would be. We struggled with ITF just because it's the wrong stakeholder group most people at ITF are interested in you know Communication standards more so web and internet payments is slightly unique and that's a stakeholder group is payments people and The obvious standards body for payments is swift, but that's not an open standards process In the same in the same vein as ITF for W3C, so we we're trying to kind of figure that out right now We're in the we're in the sort of mode of we write the specs. They're published on github They're open for anyone to implement the building implementation and we'll try and get you know A network established of people running implementations and if if that starts to get some In a momentum then the standards effectively become what is implemented in the network So formal standardization may follow the fact that standardization. Yeah No, that sounds reasonable. I understand the challenge. Thank you. Any other questions for Adrian. Okay. Thanks Adrian. Great. Thanks Was up next dipping Yeah, can you hear me? I can Okay, great because I'm using a new system And sometimes it drops out. Anyway, I I hope everybody has the link to the Working group update Which yes, I put it in the chat in the TSE channel Yeah, obviously, I'm not just going to read what is there people can read it for themselves so I'll go through it pretty rapidly because Essentially the working group Calls audio conferences every two weeks and we have pretty much been stable on zoom We have quite a few people who are interested in identity showing up On the calls and We out of which there is core group of probably eight or so and We also have a Couple of attendees new attendees every session We are forum for discussions on identity and blockchain identity in particular And The main work product, of course is meant to be the paper and also a possible implementation of an identity Module that would allow One any blockchain Implementation that we have currently to use the identity library to To interoperate help interoperate. So that is a pretty You know stretch goals sort of say The the paper itself Has been dragging a boom because people show up But editing the papers proved to be a big You know contributing to the paper is always You have to it's like pulling teeth but Try to set up a new model in which we Ask for volunteers and ask for a quick turnaround and we notice if some people are not Doing, you know, but they're volunteered to do then we quickly fall back on others So in the last couple of sessions, we have had a lot of contributions And in addition we also work with Others to create paper, you know papers like GDPR, which are relevant to our mission and on biometrics We have unconference style sort of Presentations impromptu presentations on various topics which deal with identity especially the you know, lots of institutions that were or Let's say conferences or groupings that discuss identity and then learnings from them from them and As to how it applies to Blockchain identity in particular the identity of the nodes is Been you know is taken on by the architecture working group So I also participate there. So we have pretty much similar cast of characters in in those meetings as well In terms of The planned work products we we want to produce a draft version by you know, by summer if possible and also plan a Implementation with interface definitions You know in a short period of time We really need people from the incubator DLT's to show up to be Active in this You know in all the work products that we do we do get people occasionally But most of them are not directly involved with the DLT's that we incubate so Except for the indie folks of course who are much more Tied to identity We rarely have people from let's say sawtooth or Eroha or quilt or any of those showing up in this identity meetings and Of course the acknowledgments to the most active participants and Many of the regulars Any questions for me or suggestions any comments questions for vipin on identity I would you know echo You know vipin to your point about You know getting broader involvement Again, I think you know, this is one of those areas Everybody everybody needs identity. We're doing for the most part. We're doing permission blockchain here requires identity and I do think that this is maybe You know, it is one area that I think deserves That we all sort of come to agreement on how we're going to treat identity in our respective platforms and So I I would encourage I would encourage some of that participation. I think Certainly I can say that from an IBM perspective. I think you'll probably see a renewed interest in that we've been sort of We've been on a particular course and I think you know, we're we're gonna be doing a lot more around indie and So I think you'll probably see A greater participation there any other Oh, I did have the one the one thing that I did, you know, this track me was you said you were talking about Potentially beyond just writing a specification, but also working on the implementation Would that be you know sort of proposing a new project? Is that proposing changes to indie? How do you see that playing out? Yeah, we had discussed this during the creation of the charter. In fact, I think only the identity working group was ever tossed out of all the working groups Implementation we had envisaged it as a sort of a thin layer around a elected Blockchain solution like Dave had some suggestions, for example Saying why don't we start with something very concrete? Like how do we interoperate between? fabric and sort of You know using indie or using you know an identity utility so you have a layer that would create some kind of an adapter Situation where we could Use that to do the interoperations so once you have an adapter from From fabric to indie and another one from Indeed to sort of or the other you know whichever way you want to think about it Then you have some framework around which you can create this interoperations and also it is possible if You know if we think about it a little more deeply to even replace the identity framework that Is followed in let's say fabric or in sort of with Attachments to indie of course we would need One more thing which is you know a kind of an adapter to Legacy systems in fact a lot of work is happening in I believe in in the W3C and other places They distributed key management systems the The ID TLS you know those kind of things are Trying to build that bridge It is rather ambitious, but I think it is doable Especially if we keep persisting and I think the reason why some of these things did not come to fruition so far is because We are only starting to Get some of these solutions You know The DID spec itself was just released last year and then of course There's a whole bunch of people who say you know why even bother with DID why not to use You know the existing legacy staff the urn so there is both camps and we have to Reconcile them. I think identity working group is a place where we can air those concerns and try to reconcile them You know, that's another use of this forum Vipin, um, what's the status of the W3C standards and how are we involved with that and what's our contribution? We do not have a direct Contribution to them because you have to show up in those calls again and count, you know or Work on I am just a lurker on the W3C variable claim But the DID spec, you know We have several folks from ID who are very active on there and they're also active in the identity working group and they sort of cross pollinate that thought process with us and Also contribute to the paper So the vision is shaped by you know, what's happening outside Just the blockchain space or just the Hyperledger What is it now called not umbrella, what is it? What is the new green house we're using green house? Yeah, green house, so we are gonna have plans shooting out the You know the openings and it's going to be one of those green houses where you go in and you're gonna see lots of Lots of growth Okay All right. Thanks, Vipin. Any other comments questions if not we can move on Maybe we'll actually we'll get through the agenda. Okay Next up is many of you will recall that we've had conversation about You know, what does it mean to exit? incubation What does it mean to can you produce a 1.0 release before you're an active project? What happens if we adopt a project that is already? At 1.0, but we incubate it and so forth, you know, what happens in the next release and so I think the the agreement that we reached I Need to pull up the link here put it in It's in rock. I'll you put it in there. Okay, great Yeah, and so what I did was I updated the release the project lifecycle document to Acknowledge, you know that there's a first major release under the hyper ledger greenhouse Umbrella and I think that you know where we ended up with in our discussion and I agreed to document it was that basically that a project had to come before the TSC for Its first major release period Whether it's active or passive or deprecated or anything else it still needed to come and and sort of make a presentation to the TSC and sort of get approval to to have that major release designation and get the full Treatment of hyper ledger from a marketing and PR and everything else perspective and So I added this Step the stage if you will in the life cycle I've marked it as a draft since we haven't yet agreed on it, but I think it captures what We had agreed and that is a project's maintainers seeking to affect the project's first major release, December Must seek approval of the TSC whether in active or incubation status is defined above a Project should be in active status prior to such a request, but the TSC may approve Such a request if the judgment of the TSC the code is sufficiently mature to warrant endorsement of the hyper ledger organization boom so Comments questions suggested edits Did you incorporate Jonathan's edit it did a bunch of neat peaking I was the last person to modify this his edits are in the mailing list. Oh, I must have missed that Sorry last week was a bit crazy for me And I don't know if he's on but though yet they were they were sort of wording things But it seemed like reasonably important for doing things. So, okay, I Definitely didn't see that Otherwise I can see I wasn't sure that they would fit well in that document given that it's not exactly About the life cycle, but in the end I thought what you do is pretty good Then it fits well there and since I don't know where else we would put it. I'm happy with that Yeah, do we need a standard template for the 1.0 approval like we have for the incubation or the active status? So that's a good question. I had the same I have to admit and I saw Simon stone just sent a request for a composer and He just sent an email and I was like, should we have a template? I don't know I don't want to be too administrative or bureaucratic, but I Think it's you know, I'm not sure that it's any different than the active status template There may be there may be as a few additions around like the The badges right like the the CII badge and what have you but I think our main issue with that the active template Was where the active template was overreaching was maybe on the community aspect. So maybe it's a Subset of the active template plus an item or two Yeah, so maybe one way is kind of reuse the we could instruct people or recommend that they use it and And just to highlight why they are not what's the challenge being just active Yeah, I think that's probably a good thing I guess the thing that I'm thinking is Are there is there anything above and beyond the active template that? We would want for one auto but not explicitly for active like like test coverage and I guess some of that's actually already in the active template. Oh, yeah, right I Just think it may be useful so that we you know the mile You know the sort of the milestones are clear to those as the people are preparing to come in And I mean from what I can tell Simon pretty much did just that by the way Yeah, he says, okay, we've got all these things covered. We are just missing the community So it fits exactly the use case we were talking about which seemed to be Unfortunately somewhat common We did have a discussion yesterday support of multiple protocols in the architecture working group Multiple I'm sorry, I guess I'm What I mean is, you know for something like Composer of which supports only fabric, you know, we were Wondering how not not just it was not just about Composer. In fact, it was before the before the Proposal to go one point or came out which was around three o'clock our time Because this was before that But we were discussing You know shallow explorer same Same questions which seem to come up with depressing regularity but We we were not focused on that aspect which was more about You know how to bootstrap into a multi DLT world That was anyway that that may not be germane to this discussion, but But I was just throwing it out there in case you didn't attend or listen to the Hey, and I think where there is a connection to what you're saying is this question I think we want to ask ourselves as a community is to what is the obligation of the on the developers themselves to In addition to you know running a race to a to a 1.0 release or a 1.1 release to also be doing the extra work that we know is required to be able to open their process up to External developers and to be to be recognizing that it's not just good enough to ship software You also have to be building a community I mean, it's sometimes a little frustrating on the part of the hyperlature staff because it doesn't feel like community is something we can gift To to a to a project we can do everything we can to recommend or suggest changes or you know raise awareness but ultimately it really is on the individual maintainers shoulders to to create the environment and and to proactively recruit for for new developers on the project and so Where it's related to your question is what is the obligation on the part of each individual project to look outside its own? its own borders and and recruit And make that a part of the process and that's that's where you know I like the fact that in the draft there's language that says you know if you do your 1.0 release You really should be active and I'm really hoping that it's the exception rather than the rule where we approve a 1.0 release from a project in Incubation, but the broader question is where where do we reinforce to developers that they can't just show up the sling closed sling code Aim to 1.0 release and walk away That there's there's something on their shoulders to broaden that out. Where do we where do we nudge that or require that? Yeah, that's that's interesting Brian You know one of the I'm trying to think could what if we did something like if you hit 1.0 And you don't hit active status a year later because you have a broad community then you need to Roll your project into one of the existing active Projects or something like that right because I think that could maybe be the case of of something like Composer where they hit a 1.0 If you know they're continuing to march forward on their releases, but you know community For whatever reason doesn't want to join that or they're not actively recruiting it Is that better just to become a sub-project of say fabric in the case of Composer? I'm just trying to think about Yeah, I mean that feels a little punitive and a little like you know after it's public to be pulling things back seems really awkward um and instead requiring before they hit 1.0 is a way of you know forcing to do with it early and to to you know be Constructive rather than destructive right because there's a downward spiral that you might get into if you're too punitive on a project or insert pulling them back Yeah, but that's the same time if you're if you hit 1.0 only supporting one project. You've somewhat ossified Your API's and that sort of things which may make it difficult for then other projects to Integrate with right and so that's not true at all though. That's not that's not true at all I mean I eat it, but there is there's I mean not to rehash last week's conversation, but it does You know there's this is these are moving trains these are moving tough ones and After 1.0 that suddenly opens up more freedoms people go Okay, where where now should the API's be modified or Research on the pathway to a toot auto to be able to support something to be able to support a different Different set of needs a different set of users that sort of thing Yeah, I guess I guess I'm thinking about sort of um explorer as one example, right? Uh, for instance, we have we have a sawtooth Explorer And there is a fabric explorer as well the fabric explorer is under a broader Hyper it's under a broader hyper ledger project, right? So that's the one that's meant to be the the sort of open multi-platform one But today, you know, if you were to look objectively at it It's only because that was sort of positioned that way, right? And so if that one as we kind of saw the update on it is designed around channels and maybe fabric At what point I'm just trying to understand about Is it just that kind of proposal? Yeah Kelly, could I propose that we have a Have a separate phone call a separate conversation about ways we might bring the Sawtooth Explorer and and the the overall hyper ledger explorer projects together Yeah, just to keep us focused on this agenda topic. Okay. I'll try to I'll I'll propose that on the tsc. Okay. So thanks Brian. Thanks Kelly. Um, so I I Took a look at Jonathan's prose. I made the changes that he suggested well Three out of the four anyway Yeah, I don't think the first one is correct by the way Yeah, I I Rephrased it basically to accommodate his his word tweaking. Um, I think his was fine Um, so now it reads a project's maintainers seeking to publish projects first Major release December must seek approval of the tsc whether active or inactive status is defined above Well, is it expected that most projects will have reached an active status by the time their maintainers seek to announce The first major release the tsc may approve such requests Also in cases where um, the project is still an incubation status Should the tsc believe that the project's code is sufficiently mature That works And I so you can refresh the doc if you've Got enough works for me Any objections? I don't know if actually Todd do we have quorum? I don't recall Uh, yeah, we do have quorum now. Okay. All right. So any objections? Okay, if not, then it's approved and I will remove draft Thanks for driving that chris. Yeah Thanks, everyone and I I think that's you know, I think overall it was a Generally a healthy thing Oh, I have to put in the another state up here. I'll fix that um, okay Next up Uh Tracy I think or brian one of you was going to review the uh working group Template Yeah So I was just going to say I mean I there hasn't been a lot of conversation about this but um I'm on the list. Uh, so I don't know if we're ready to vote now Or if that seems that it's generally uncontroversial, but you know, as I mentioned the email We we wanted to have a template for uh to create Um, some new working groups, uh for like from a governance or process perspective We had been a little unclear And and before overwhelming, you know, the plc With too many different ways of going about it or our own staff with different ways that are like to make sure that sort of thing We thought we just um proposed kind of a generic template and then Hopefully there's there's maybe three or four different sectors specific working groups that we'd like to propose over the next few weeks Um, and we've already been working with people around them. They'd be modeled after the health care working group But before delivering that with us, we try to just help help the tfc exercise this oversight prerogative by Trying to be kind of semi standardized I recognize there's some existing working groups, which really technical working groups that aren't following this model Yeah, we could grandfather all of those And maybe converge eventually But uh, anyway, it's always the rationale behind it and it's got a lot of back and forth in the staff, but Sounds time for the tfc or if it looks good. Um, and you're ready to approve that would be great Yeah, so brian, um, while there was no comments on the mailing list. There were some comments made in the actual document itself That we should probably go through and just uh, make sure that we are all on the same page Okay Could you go through them? Yes, definitely. So, uh, the first comment that we have is under the work products. Uh, so Our question was asked I suppose we wanted to have a research working group where we discussed New blockchain research and the focus was on learning rather than direct output Participants might find it quite beneficial even if there were no outputs Would this have a place as a working group? So I think up until now we've done the working groups where Um, they're just expected to be some sort of Output from there, right? What what sort of products they might be producing as far as documentation and that sort of thing Are what does the tfc feel about having working groups that don't produce output For work products. Well, it would be crazy to say that there won't be a work product because if there is a research working group they would expect the discussions to be saved as You know audio files. We would expect some Something in the meeting minutes we would expect so, you know the We would expect let's say there are specific topics of research That are presented then we would expect some kind of link to those Saved either in the meeting minutes or somewhere else. So work product does not necessarily mean just a paper or a implementation Yeah, but so I think, you know, I think it's a fair point I if you look at w3c, for instance, they have working groups and interest groups interest group Are they essentially discussion forums and I'm not suggesting to have two different names I'm happy to make it so that a working group can be said to be essentially about enabling discussion on some topic And I would think that, you know, we can Allow definitely people to propose one such group and then we can look at it and You know on a case by case basis decide the whether this makes sense or not And I agree with you VP in that there is typically some kind of Traces hopefully anyway In in terms of minutes or if anything else Yes, I think That we should encourage any kind of working group to Leave physical traces of what they are doing And take a consistent approach to also reporting to the TSC And these should be work products. Even those reports to TSC Okay, so I've made comment to whoever that anonymous person was to note kind of a discussion here The next comment on here is somebody believes that Email should be provided an initial set of emails for those initial participants If somebody else says it's considered PII and us Shouldn't be there for anti-spam reasons Yeah, that was me at the second comment. I apologize. Um, just an attempt to try to Not scare people away by saying well, your email address is going to be in the public document then I mean, hopefully everyone contributes and then chooses to reveal their their email address, but uh, uh, I just I've had pushback a little bit from, you know, long public lists of email addresses Maybe that's archaic But I guess we're not forbidding people from Putting their email address if they want to and the template seems to be saying this and I think that's maybe what triggered the whole thing I think it should say that it should at least have the names and organizations or affiliations of those people. That's about it So I guess I'm I guess I'm struggling with the the the the whole Concept of initial participants. Um, yeah, I think, you know, maybe there needs to be some evidence of interest And so you can have maybe sponsors You know, so others that are willing to sort of say, yeah, I think this is important and we should do this Um, I agree it shouldn't be emails But That's a list of people who say if you create this, I will participate I wouldn't call it initial participants because it's not necessarily the case, but I would say Sponsors, I mean, that's what we've done with other projects that we say what are the project sponsors It's a bit different. I would say maybe there is a different name, but Interesting parties we can make it if you want interested parties or something like this Exactly it's intended to show that there's support for it. Um, right because we're not we're not blessing, you know specific named participants as like a committee of some sort It's just here's the people who said they'll join the list and Participate in the conversation Which is a lower threshold than when we're looking for sponsors for a project. Um, you know as individuals we still expect. Yeah Yeah, that's a more major But I think happy for the different name and participant Interested parties seems like a good compromise so The next section sort of cover elections and initial chair and so forth um in the in the in the past, um It's been pretty evident somebody, you know has an interest in Championing the idea and they come forward and they do the legwork to make a proposal and gather interest and and and I've been of the You know, I think in most cases the the individual who did all that legwork has been the one that gets to be the chair And and and I guess I'm a little bit I'm a little bit concerned a bit with all subscribers of the working groups mailing list as of the date get to vote on the chair Um, there's an awful lot of people that are just passive And I'd be um worried about again, I'd Don't get me wrong, but I've seen this happen in other places where something just gets gained Subscribing to a mailing list costs nothing There's no investment required. You can cancel at any time And all of a sudden you're going to ram somebody in as chair because you've got You know, you were made you were able to sort of convince all your colleagues at work to vote for you Um, I don't think that's too cool. I actually think that the chair of a working group should be chosen by the tsc Yeah, it was an attempt to try to crowd source it and and That working group feel like they have some ownership over one one idea we floated By the way was the idea of having the subscribership To that working group as of say a month or two prior So that the odds of it being gamed the last minute for low or even a week or two prior You know, uh, so the last minute gaming wasn't really going to be easy. Um, but uh, uh, yeah, well All across the game I'll tell you the story about what happened with open stack and the early elections for the Technical committee, uh, and it was game. Uh, I won't mention the company that it was totally gained And it was well in advance. I mean they they they planned it out Okay, they say it was stupid and everybody knew what they certainly for they paid the price I again, I think You know the tsc should um I think the tsc here's just two things I'd say in response to that is um For the for something like electing the tsc We have that filter of being a contributor, right? And that's that's a that's still a it's a non-zero same right and I mean full of no growing question no challenge to that being a chair of a working group is Actually going to be a fair bit of work and a fair bit of expectation And and and we will actually ride her a little bit on the on these chairs, right? And if they underperform it's going to be obvious in front of a large influential crowd And so to some degree if someone really wants to be chair so much so that they talk You know ten of the co-workers into joining the mailing list. Um, you know, I You know, we'll we'll put the duocracy kind of burden on on this to a large degree, I think I I and on the other hand it feels a little like It's a it's a low level of the stack. It's not really a lot of power And and so I thought the risk would be I I had mixed feelings on this. Um On one hand Any subscriber to the mailing list and I had put a question in there does the Do the people who vote have to be members of hyperledger or can anyone vote because they're on the mailing list? um But the other thing was You know people can be on the mailing list and just say oh, I can go vote and they've never been to a meeting Don't know what's going on. They just vote. Um, you know, so is it active participants? Um, but the flip side of that is someone may not be active because they don't like the way the chair is doing something so There did there is a big question Definitely of how do we phrase it and I think that's on tsc of choosing the chair For each and every working group Is a lot of the big of an ask from tsc because if we think of scaling it Moving forward We start launching more of those groups We ask the tsc to attend Most of those calls on a weekly or bi-weekly basis To understand how the chairs are performing um And they're we envisioned launching At least three probably four vertical working groups That's a lot um, so I'm not sure if this is something that tsc wants to take on From an effort perspective You are right. That's probably active participant participation would be better than just subscribing to the mailing list But how do we measure that? um Is mailing list the right place, uh, or is it active on the calls because someone not necessarily wants to be Just active on the on the mailing list isn't is another thing. That's why we kind of went ahead and said Let's choose everyone who's subscribed to the mailing list And we will be able to monitor, you know last minute Subscribers as well if we see all of a sudden huge jump in subscriptions We are able to uh, then point out these people and kind of behind the door, um Point them out and resolve that issue, uh, rather than Deal with other aspects, uh, if we choose other mechanisms At the same time, you know, I I don't know that we have maybe there is a problem where I don't know I'm not aware of but I mean we have had working groups for over two years in existence We never had this election process for the chairs They kind of came about naturally because they were as Chris mentioned They were at the leading front of proposing the working groups. They volunteered and as far as I know They're doing a good job. We see those updates now. They are stepping up to make that happen and I don't know it feels a little bit to me like we are solving a problem that doesn't exist And maybe in doing so we are going to create a new one Which is along the lines of what chris was mentioning some kind of gaming if somebody wanted to And so tell you what because we're at time. Why don't um and because there has now been conversation on the Google doc one of we commit to Continuing the conversation on the tsc list and in comments here And we will try to key up here the three or four open questions and then bring them back to next week's tsc Meeting and if we can you know pose them as yes. No or we're kind of you know option a option b Then maybe we can come to close by next week's call. Does that sound good? Yes, it does Great. This is our job. So thanks again everyone for the packed agenda and next week We'll put Dave will put you up top And I think it's been three weeks now. So we'll put I appreciate that the Composed deadline is is approaching fast April 17th. Yeah, we'll put you up top and then We'll have the Fabric and performance and scaling working groups and then we'll have composer Okay, thanks everybody and talk to y'all soon. Thanks