 Hello everyone, welcome to the TSE weekly call. As you all know, I'm sure we have, you must be aware of the antitrust policy and the code of conduct as a condition to participate in these meetings. This is all to keep us out of travel. So, as I said, we have a fairly light agenda. As I said in my email, but we'll see how much it takes to get through this. So let's first start with a couple of announcements. The first one is the weekly developer newsletter that I'm sure you're all aware of by now, it should be. And then I just wanted to highlight the TSE election that started. And so in the nomination period is open. I saw several people have already made it themselves or some of their colleagues and so. So, Yeah, get to it. The game is on. And the nomination period ends what is September 19, if I remember correctly. I'm sorry, what September one. Yes, it's number 17 is when nominations close. So you haven't held it. Still have time to think about it if you're on the fence. But I hope to see everybody back. We already know that two of our colleagues are not going to be here again. So there's anyway some room for new blood, which you know, I look forward to seeing it's always good to get new people on board. All right, with that done, let's go through. Well, is there any other announcements anybody wants to make first. See any hands raising. I'm not. All right. Let's get to the quarterly reports. So we still have the grid and transact reports. And in addition, we got the chelo report that was added this week. Thank you for submitting this. I don't think there is any issues that discussing now but this is your chance to tell me otherwise. Is there anything anybody wants to discuss on those reports. I guess not. All right, and Hey, yeah. So on this cellar right so that was a newly added report so I just wanted to confirm it from the cellar team, if the new labs proposal team did they reach out to sell. I remember there were comments on the labs proposal where they already had fabric operators available and so I had a roadmap of supporting 2.2 LTS release. And there was a suggestion maybe there is collaboration possible, and they could just reuse some of the content from here. Okay, so thanks for bringing that up I mean as far as I know, there's two or so ideas from you. That's what you're referring to in the labs team. I mean they don't necessarily get involved beyond commenting on the proposal for one highlight this kind of opportunity for collaboration. Maybe it's my bad but I usually leave it to them to decide whether to do so or not. So I haven't done anything beyond that. But I suppose it's a good opportunity to ask the cellar team more power in this case, if they are aware of this lab and maybe they can have a look into it. I know this lab, but I don't have the chance to look into the details this lab project. Okay. Yeah. And I know there are quite a few of those. These operators in the works and so I, I know that when the lab was proposed I also pointed out all the possible connection. So, when we have this, I mean, there is no rule preventing labs from overlapping with another. So that alone is not, you know, recent for the steward to say no, sorry, you can't do this. But we definitely, you know, try to highlight the points of connections overlap so to encourage collaboration as much as possible. A quick question to also any special reason you highlight this operator lab. Yeah, I saw in the report that you have a roadmap of supporting to the authorities release and I also had seen similar status for the previous quarterly report. So probably I felt like reusing some of this code called speed up this effort. Okay, I see. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, if you look at the thread of comments on the on the lab proposal. I had pointed out that in cello there is an operator. And so it would make sense to put them to look into it they say well, it seems like the chill operator is kind of far behind. It's it's old and outdated. And I say okay that's possible but then maybe you should work with them to maybe have cello project, you know, upgrade their operator by using yours if yours is newer and better. And so that's one thing you could look into power. So, you know, in the previous release or channel there's another implementation to support the coolness. And our new release plan. There is no such kind of feature maybe we can reach the operator team to see if it's possible to integrate their coolness support into the channel project. Okay. Yep. Okay, anything else. All right, well thank you for the discussion. All right, so I think that's it for the reports then I still haven't heard from Silas on borrow, I'm sorry to say, so we'll probably have to ping him again, usually is good at responding to say, Oh sorry I don't have time right now but I'll get to it. I didn't get any response. Well, I am not sure what to think, but we'll see. Maybe he's so swamped that he can even tell me he's swamped. Hey Arnaud, I have a call with Casey coming up next week so and I did ask him to, to get back to you. So, all right, I'll chase. Yeah, I'll chase that down for you. Yep. Thank you. If you have the opportunity that'd be great. Thanks. All right, so let's move on now to the discussion. I mean, as I said the main discussion item for today's agenda is this issue that was raised when we were talking about the, you know, what should be taken into consideration for entering incubation. And it's part of the discussion I triggered some thought that maybe some of the exit criteria from incubation could also use a little bit of an update. And so Arun started this, and some of us discussed and commented on what he had put together and I think I didn't have time to read through the details but I understand Arun you made some updates just before the call. So what are you working through? What's the status? Right. So what I, and thanks Tracy for pointing out in detail and giving all those pointers. And there were two major comments on this page. And one of them was on the checklist to be prepared and Tracy pointed out, hey we already have a checklist for that community architects follow in case of a release. And the other comment that you pointed out was, hey, in this case, all we need to do is just add this one line over there saying that the project should meet criteria for one of the things that we should add is the repository structure. Thanks Tracy for pointing that section in the TSH charter, we probably will add this in the, in the case. Yeah, just a concern or a question from my end would be, we are not specifying any timelines over here for repository structure. So I believe when we prepare the checklist we probably could also come up with timelines for each of those checklist items. Yes. So I have to say I don't quite understand that idea because I mean the checklist it's like well they must all be checked to qualify to exit incubation. So these, you know, there's there's no timeline per se because it's like well either you can check the box, or you cannot apply for to to exit incubation. Tracy. Yeah, I agree with that. I think the other comment that I had related to this was that the checklist that I had put together with those four kind of items was just a here's some ideas off the top of my head I don't know if it's complete or not. So we may want to think whether or not there's other things that we want to add that need to be completed when a project graduates but I. Obviously we've done this what six times already or something like that so. And I know that the Hyperledger staff is is really good at making sure that people recognize that things have moved from incubation to graduate it so. Yeah, really I think it's right I think in my checklist most of the items right fell for the community architects or for the PR group so I don't know if there's anything else that we, we want to include in that checklist but that's, I guess the only thing I wanted to add. All right, thanks. Does that make sense. So from that point of view, I mean, all we should be doing is. You know, see if there are check, check boxes that we want to add modify or possibly remove but I doubt that's the case. You know, from the list we have. And, you know, these are like, as far as I remember the executor is just like, yeah, you must have those things. This is, you know, don't even bother applying if you don't have all these boxes checked. Yes, hot. Yeah, so I just wanted to comment that I think this is in a lot better shape I think we're doing pretty well that here and this isn't a lot better shape than the move to incubation in the first place. So one of our projects that have requested a move to exit incubation, you know, have sort of known what was going on. It's been a very streamlined process. It's gotten it and it's, it's there, there hasn't been a lot of friction in the process, or any sort of misunderstandings, like there have been for proposals for getting into incubation. So I think this is in much better shape than that. Yeah, I think there's one case that didn't go through its explorer. Right, and we've said, well, oh, you're right. I'm sorry. You don't need the diversity requirement. And they fairly recently said they were talking about possibly applying again. But I haven't seen anything happening yet. So, I don't know if there's still something they're considering a lot. But I think we're going to continue with their characterization situation, and I think we obviously work quite a bit on this in the past, and it shows. And like you said, and like entering incubation where basically we have nothing here we have a pretty decent least we for those who are new and haven't worked on this, I can tell you we, we've had a lot of discussions in the past as to how trying to make those as objective as possible. And we recognize that we couldn't have it completely objective there were some cases like, you know, the diversity criteria and so on that still could be you know, it's not completely objective, but for the most part, I think they are. And people have been, I agree with what heart says is like people seem to have a pretty good understanding of what's expected when they look into it. I propose we go through your list here and discuss one by one whether you know there's something we agree to do or not. That makes sense. Right, it's realized that I should not have added following statement, it should rather be just. Yeah, I missed that following statement. And it raises comment on the comment section that needs to be copied under that. So the first section is just introducing common depository structure. As I said this was brought up during entry considerations discussion. And the reason it was probably brought out was it was never documented in exit criteria. So we just introduced the plus infrastructure saying that you should meet this for you to consider exit from incubation. Okay. Does anybody disagree with that. Basically we're saying we should add to the criteria that people should be compliant with the common repository structure. Okay, so soon for now at least that they really agrees with doing that. Let's go to the next one. The fact that it's in first structure section or not this kind of a detail is almost a tutorial as far as I'm concerned but it seems like this is a good place to have it. I mean we already did to talk as has been pointed out that you know we already talked about some of the files that are expected to be found so it's only logical to add to this, the reference to the common repository structure. So let's go to the next point then. So, what is this about. Can you expand on what you're thinking is here. So, I mean my idea during when we were discussing incubation entry considerations there was a section where we said it would be good if we have a checklist where somebody can consider going through them and know whether they're accepted or not. There was also a thought flowing around saying that we have something similar for exit considerations. And that's when this item was brought in, and these points that you see were added by Tracy probably I'm like Tracy kitchen as well. Okay, but so now we actually this is more for like a process slash implementation aspect right. In terms of the exit criteria themselves. There is nothing else that you suggest we add that is correct. Okay, so let me ask first, you know to the group is there anything else anybody thinks we need to add. I mean I wouldn't expect you to make that up. Now it's maybe something you have thought about a by the way, this is something we should. We should have. If not, it's probably means that you know you haven't thought about this and that's okay. All right so let's talk about this idea now. So I have to say I mean so the checklist again, we, if you look at the way. I wonder if we have the example like the last project to graduate I believe was in the areas. And they did a pretty good job at filling out the application and typically people have, you know, taken the list from the exit criteria, and literally, you know started from this, and responded. And, you know, information around those points explaining whether they, you know, sometimes with checkbox and some comments as to how they comply, or as they meet the criteria. So is there another checklist that you're thinking of, because there I see some my attempts to consider adding to a checklist. This is more again like that's not for the applicant right. This is kind of more to document what's supposed to happen when people graduate. Yeah, if someone else wants to drive. I can, someone else can like our know if you want to show what you're thinking of I can give it for you. I'm sorry, what are you asking me to do. We're talking about previous checklist and what about this and what about that and I don't know but we are we're on that checklist there. You were looking at it actually Tracy is a hand up, but we were fine that we do what you were showing Tracy. So just to clarify I think what the idea here is that currently we have a checklist for when a project enters incubation right the community architects follow a particular set of items they obviously need to make sure they're creating chat channels and mailing list and that PR is happening that we did this new thing right we added this new product hyper ledger. And so forth right. I think what a rune is asking here is for there to be a similar checklist when we have a project enter grad graduated state. Right so when a project goes into graduated state what are the steps that need to be taken. They're probably a lot less right because we don't need to do all the infrastructure type setup. From, from, you know, repos to mailing list to chat channels to whatever else needs to be created. But we do have to do some things and when I say we that's the royal we and mostly falling on hyper ledger staff members to complete the things that need to be done right down the same way as I think most of the stuff has to happen. And so that's why I think hyper ledger staff when a project enters incubation as well. I think from the TSC perspective it's very much a yay or nay right we vote to say whether or not something graduates her. Right. And then, after that we were kind of hands off. And so, I think the confusion here right is maybe, is it really the TSC is responsibility to state to the staff what they need to do when a project graduates or not. So that's, that's probably, I think probably what's causing some of the confusion that that you're asking about. I agree. I mean, thank you for explaining this this is exactly the point I was trying to drive to. So, you said it much better than I was trying to do. So thank you. But so, I would you agree with that characterization that Tracy just gave us. Right. I see it's pointed and probably we cannot. I'm sorry what I mean, yeah, I'm just trying to think if there was something else that the reason why I added this so. Okay, but this was during those conversations when we were having three considerations. And just keep a note of things that we said, hey, let us consider this as an amendment to execute right to the end state. So that's when I made a note of it. Right, so I think there's a distinction between I mean, for the entry considerations, we added at the end like this best practices kind of, they were more like hints for the applicants on things to do to increase their chances. Right. It was this idea is like, well, there are things we know from experience that help, you know, people succeed. And so, why don't we share this capture a few bullets of things that people might consider doing. If there's something equivalent there. I think that would make sense for us to, to add a section like this. I don't know of the top of my head that there are things we I would know what to put there but you know, it would be logical that we have something similar to what we put in the entry considerations. On the other end, to, to, you know, what you're talking about, specifically in that on your on that wiki page, the proposal right here is more, you know, what Tracy was talking about what the staff is expected to do and I mean so far, except for the election, which clearly is a case where we have a full documentation of what the staff is supposed to do and we just approve that and we are going through this now. They basically have to follow the, the, the set of instruction that have been agreed upon with certain times and so for the rest, I'm not aware of us having ever basically dictated how they do it. Or even if you don't want to make it sound so bad, more like just documenting. And maybe you could say well, I think it would be good to document what the staff is expected to do. You know, but this is a bit of a different exercise than, you know, revising the exit criteria per se. And if, if we were to stop doing this, I think this is, you know, pretty major undertaking that this is just a small portion of, of what we would have to document if we want to start documenting what the stuff is supposed to do. You know, you know, what are you supposed to do when what when like a whole bunch of events up. If this happens, the staff is supposed to do this, this and that. So, I agree and I see what you're trying to convey. And thanks Tracy for pointing that out. It doesn't make sense for us to add this class, the point number two in that case, and definitely we should not be doing it. So let me ask, I mean, does that make sense anybody wants to get into this. Yes, nobody's raising their hands so the answer is no. I mean, I don't know if maybe we have not come across any such case but maybe when there is a case where he can not do anything about this part from this but it is a must thing to be done for a project. And it's all in terms of it's a community architects or the staff, maybe that those things we can consider, but on top of my mind I cannot think of anything, any case like that as of now. All right. All right, so I think we saw this proposal is much more simple now. Basically, the it comes down to, you know, adding the section that Tracy has updated thank you for doing that Tracy. You know, regarding the, the, the strict the common repository structure. Is there anything else we should consider. So I would suggest you strike this section to now, then we can just, you know, approve the rest of the proposal. And, you know, if anybody feels that some point that we should get into documenting with the staff or community architects are supposed to do or expected to do. I think this should be addressed in a, you know, independently in a different as a different item. I mean, I don't think we need to necessarily tell the staff what to do. I think, sort of like the, the intuition behind this proposal is sort of, you know, you need to reach out to the staff, which I think is a good people, or sorry, which is a good thing to tell people, but, but I don't see any reason why we need to like, you know, tell the staff how they specifically have to handle stuff like this. And I don't know, I mean, we can ask the staff, we have several members here and then former members. I mean, I imagine you guys do have some kind of documentation for certain things you do just because for practical purposes. When you have to pass over some responsibility is kind of useful to say, hey, this is what you're supposed to do. You know, let me know if you have any questions. We have written this kind of stuff out, but I don't know that it needs to be published as part of official documentation for that matter. We do have internal checklists. I guess we can go to the. So we do have checklists that are in progress, etc. I think when you know fmr new project, all that we do have best practices for documented. We do have internal how to articles as well. So we do have documentation for this. All right. Perfect. That's, that's what I thought. So that's something that only the staff sees this right. I mean, we were showing. I don't think we have access to that. Yeah, that's a private space, a private space. And I mean, that's fine with me. I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong, but you give us a glimpse of something that we normally are not supposed to see as possible. I don't know that it's meant to be hidden per se, but just not designed to be public info. That's all. But what I do here is not super secret. And, you know, Tracy has done it all. So, it's just documentation for for us. I mean, it's not like, it's not rude. You know, we're not doing anything, you know, terrible. It's just documentation for us. Right. So, I mean, unless anybody wants them to start opening this up and start reviewing it, I think we can leave it alone. So, again, I suggest we, we update the current proposal. We move the section to and approve that. And then we can update the executive area accordingly and we can call it done. Does that sound like a plan? A rune does that work for you? Yes, so I just updated it. Maybe if you refresh it should reflect. There you go. Thank you. All right, so I propose we approve the proposal as currently edited. I could. Thank you. All right. So let's do a quick vote. Anybody agreeing? Say hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. All right. Anybody wants to propose? Yeah, anyone. Very good. Anybody wants to be marked as abstaining. All right, hearing none. This is your by approve. I created a PR for this already. So it's in the chat channel, please. At least two people approve it so we can. Perfect. Thank you, Tracy. Super fast. Very cool. All right, so. Back to the agenda. This was it. I was hoping we would be able to get that done fairly quickly. I, my wishes. You know, the full field. So, but is there anything else anybody wants to bring up now? I do want to point out again, as I pointed out her before, that we have other items in the backlog. Some of these, like the restructure of the greenhouse. I think we'll quickly soon be taken care of because the task force in child are doing this is completing its work. And so things like this will be easy to close. And so I think that's a good idea. Others are basically pending action from some people who said, and I run your name is on the top of my mind when I say that because, and it's not to, you know, point finger at you in particular, but, you know, I don't want to say that I don't want to say that I don't want to say that because you're one of the most active members. But we, we, I, we did some house cleaning a while ago. And I tried to close some of this and people said, oh, we shouldn't close this. I'll do this before we can move forward. And so those items are pending these actions to be taken. Otherwise they just sit there, which isn't the best. So I saw Daniel raising his hand first. I don't know if we're supposed to go to legal. Does anything move on that? Or do we just need to make the policy recommendation ourselves? This is a good question. When I saw it the other day, I was like, man, this thing. I mean, this is, I'll be honest to me, this is a failure from Brian Villendorf. He has the ball on this one. He asked, he said he would take care of it. Look and discuss it with legal. So we have been waiting for him to get back to us on this. And. Daniel now Brian not being here. I, I would suggest you bring it back to Brian and remind him that we'd like to have an update as to the status of this and, or if they have given up. Okay. I will, we'll get a status update for you by the next meeting, if not before. So I think we could do a proposal that would be compliant with whatever the lawyers come. If you were to talk about it, I think it's one that would satisfy most people, but. We need clarity on that for sure. We'll get that back to you. Yeah. I mean, I know if you have some idea that, you know, feel free to make a proposal that you think would, you know, Oh, I had three proposals in there, none of them come up for. Yes, I know. The one that I think. I'm sorry to head down. The one that I think has the most legs is to say that there must be a real name signing it. And that could be a maintainer and if a maintainer is signing it, knowing it's like terms two and three that has been suspended properly. And they put their real name on it. They know who the other person is and that should be acceptable. So that way. Anonymous people would only need to unmask basically to the maintainer and the maintainer then would need to take the liability of putting their real name on the signature. I think that's the best way to address it. If this is anonymous contributors, not willing to unmask the maintainer, then we can't accept their contribution. I think it's where it needs to go. That sounds reasonable to me. I mean, but I remember we had these discussions and so. I don't know. Let's wait to see what Brian says, but I think. I, you know, we should try to close this one way or another. So. Look for that to come back to the agenda once we heard back from Brian. I hope he doesn't stall us saying, I'll get back to you. All right. Thank you, Daniel for bringing that one up. Thank you. If there's any others that people feel, you know, strongly about. It'll be a good time to bring those back up. Anything you can do to resurrect the discussion, revive the discussion is good. Otherwise I think we should try and close these because it doesn't serve any purpose to have those things just stalling there. I don't know. Maybe Daniel, you still have your hand up. Is that just left over or. Okay. All right. So unless there is anything else anybody wants to bring up now. I'm happy to close the call early. Doesn't open that often. Nobody complains when we do. So I don't see any hands coming up. Calling once calling twice. All right. Okay. Thank you all for joining. And we'll talk again next week. Goodbye. Bye.