 okay the four years are now all right hello everyone welcome to the DSC call as always please if you're new to the call keep take a look at the anti-trust policy notice that is being displayed you're also supposed to be familiar with it it's also a kind of conduct that you're supposed to be familiar with which we won't go through now but basically it's linked from the agenda you can follow the links and basically it tells you to be here like a decent human being. The calls otherwise are public. Everybody's welcome to participate and so many we are just those of us at the maintainer's summit in Minneapolis are about 30 in the room right now 30-20 the registration numbers but they're getting close to 200 the leaders that hadn't signed in yet that will be so we should be okay on session leaders I'll just have to make sure to recruit locals more but other than that everything's gone. What are session leaders supposed to do beforehand? So session leaders if they most have already prepped all their materials but we are also doing things on conference style so there is a grid and so there are additional session leaders that we always recruit on premises where they sit there and they're like oh so we can go and talk about something we want to talk about and create a workgroup or something along those lines I might yeah go do it and so those those kind of things that always happen and so those session leaders don't actually have to plan anything other than their own levels of expertise. There's a quality report there are three reports. Is there any questions about any of those or is there something that the TSC did? One of the challenges we seem to have with integrating different components across projects is the programming language and I noticed in the report that SOTU is going through this rewrite in Rust but not everything from what I understand is in Rust yet and so they have to do cross boundaries between the language and some issues that we got to performance impact. I'm curious to know you know is there a less serious problem they're going to be able to address? Yeah yeah it's because the entire code base for the balladator node has been originally in Python and then in order to move it to Rust we started taking off modules one by one but whenever you want to communicate across modules then you've got to serialize it over the FFI and that has gone relatively smoothly with the exception of when we deal with our fork-in consensus for poets there's a lot of complicated things that happen there so there's more of this back and forth and so when we go through our long-running tests that we do before making a release that exposes things that come up you know hundred a thousand ten thousand blocks or something through the lifecycle of the chain and so some of those deeper problems were showing performance regressions as part of being in this intermediate state between languages. Do you expect the Prang to go away because eventually everything will be in Rust and it won't be this one re-crossing anymore? Right. So that doesn't get all but very well for this notion that we can have libraries in Rust and whatever language you have it's okay because you can use it you can always integrate. Don't think that that's a correlation? You don't think that problem will appear everywhere we do that? I think there's lots of examples where you use a library that's written in one language by calling it from another thing it's the Sawtooth performance issue there is sort of unique to Sawtooth and migrating something. It's also GRPC isn't it? So it's much more expensive than a Rust CFSI. I would draw too many conclusions from one defect. It's mentioned there because it held up the release so we're treating it like a defect. Any other questions from anyone else? I know this is Angelo so more than a question I would like to do this consideration because I guess all the TSC member agrees that the fact that you should have the project interoperate more or try to collaborate so I see here that Sawtooth has released the PBFT already. So how can we foster this interoperability? For example in this specific case this PBFT may be used by Fabrik as consensus algorithm or do you have any recommendations here because someone has to put some effort that's the thing but we have to push at some point too loud to close the microphone here. Is it better now? Okay try again slower. Is it better now? Yes right now it's good so don't speak too fast. I was saying about the fact that all TSC members said that we should find a way to have the projects the Hyperledger projects collaborate more or be interoperable in some way so Sawtooth has this PBFT algorithm now that this is what they've released that already. How can we foster this collaboration between multiple projects like integrating this PBFT protocol in Fabrik for example. So how can we do that? Okay thank you very loose notion or it's been discussed from time to time to create some sort of common consensus library so that's that's one area that's not something that I think we would want to enter into lightly because these things are pretty complicated but I think that the abstractions that are created to support forketed and non forketed consensus in Sawtooth there's bound to be lessons that can be extracted from that to be adopted by other projects either through a project of its own that the other projects adopt or directly. So I mean to answer your questions you know practically speaking you know it's just a matter of connecting with the right people from Sawtooth they're working on this part of the code and see how you guys can work out some you know integration path and then you know whether they should become a separate project like consensus library kind of thing we can take that on later on that shouldn't stop you right now. Well consensus is particularly difficult because right now all of the platforms link into the chain code or smart contract layer a little differently they're consistent subreddits. So it'll be a tricky problem but I think something definitely works well in the long run. But I mean you know Jerry's thinking I mean like what we've been doing during the last two days at the maintenance site it's a lot of discussions along those lines right we have different projects with common interest in integrating different pieces and say okay let's get together discuss how it works how it might look what it might look like and then try to figure out a plan for and so I think my first answer is to try and do exactly that for this for the consensus part right. So yeah I think if it's a matter for you and Joe to connect with the right people from the Sawtooth project I think we can maybe then you can take the action item to figure this out. Yeah yeah I think that's the right path. Let's answer your question. So I don't know I'm not really a consensus guy so I'm more a crypto guy so I might connect better with the URSA the URSA project but I was more curious on how can we nudge the participants in doing that because at some point someone has to put an effort right so can we do something as TSC members can we do something to nudge these members in the right direction to say maybe it's better if you report also that you did something to bridge your platform to other platforms. So Angelo while we're on this topic this is Mike, Dan and I wanted to reach out with you on some URSA stuff to discuss some questions we had as a result of the members or the maintainers of it. So we'll get in touch with you on that if that's all right. Yeah I would say yes let's do that I mean if we can do if this can become an example our first way to say oh we finally got a bridge between Fabrik and URSA by the way I looked recently at your project and I found how to connect I mean it shouldn't be too it should be quite easy to connect Fabrik with URSA for what I understood but definitely let's I really because we have to start from somewhere we have to push somewhere to say these projects should collaborate more I will we should ask the members to do something proactively even. Thank you but so to get back to the question of consensus how do we gather people who are interested to work with Angelo's questions? Well I think that's a great question. We need to come up with with different approaches too. There's nothing that we don't usually try to think how to phrase it. So the usual response is we've got to do accuracy so where there's people who are interested that's how things happen. But we could have some kind of call out to say hey you know there are people interested in working consensus together. Yeah so maybe a personalized thing so like if Angelo you see that there's a good opportunity here maybe you can try to stitch together. It isn't that specific example but like component A component B then it's a matter of reaching out to the maintainers there and maybe trying to make a personal appeal. I would propose something slightly different. Email is essentially free. Send an email ask people you know we have unlimited usage of these zoom accounts just to say hey I want to have a boff online whatever and and just you know make it happen doesn't have to be so you know doesn't have to be so much direct one on the trade. Yeah but on the other side you could just take the code. I mean for what it's worth I already looked at code right. If we had an interest in PBFT we would use it right we're not we're not focused on PBFT right now. But to your point Angelo right I mean from an implementation perspective you would have to do something that's going to be similar to what Ursa is trying to do right or similar to how we use that CD raft right and actually like the raft implementation in saw through this actually loosely based on a port of the CD one right into Rust. So somebody would have to propose you know doing that and have joint interest right but from the other side of it if somebody wants to proactively do it right it becomes down to the notion of not invented here which is a syndrome everywhere right. Take a look at what's out there and say hey I might be interested in using this you know do I need help on it. You know do you want to kick it off etc. For instance I'm looking forward to see the first to interact with transact and to see how can you play with with Fabry. Right so we have work on that underway right I think that's the first example where we actually jointly decided to do something from the beginning that could potentially well from almost the beginning that could be potentially leveraged by multiple projects. Yeah and there were quite a bit of discussions around transact and integration with different projects but there's some in there. Yeah I think we even got HRSA and transact commit. I just added HRSA is another provider to transact for signing for so I mean it was a pretty simple one but Sean and I together. Yeah good benefit again if people sit down face face so think have any different levels. So you know at the end of the day that's what's key is trying to find the people who are interested in working on it. So does it make sense to say let's use transact as a blueprint going forward so we you know sort of watch how trans acts doing it and then we can do a lesson what worked good what didn't and you know maybe come up with a rough guideline for our future interactions. So part of the to your point Mark yes I do think though that oftentimes it's really a function of you know team you know goes off and creates a Jira or writes an RFC or whatever and it falls in the woods nobody hears it and they go off and they do some work or at least only the people that are in the woods actually hear it and and then everybody sort of sees oh look there's a PPFT or there's a rash or there's a whatever and it's like well you know we had known about that we might have gotten involved over the earlier and so forth I think it really is a function of being a bit more outgoing and be sort of mindful of the the notion that you know when we embark on building some new capability the thing to do would be to sort of you know as a suggestion just by Ryan post an email say hey we're gonna start doing this here's an initial spec it might have relevance to this project that project the other project and we love to get feedback and we're interested in you know doing a development effort that potentially involves collaboration and can make this useful in more than one project I think that's the kind of spirit that you need to have in order to make that real you know to Gary's point yeah sometimes it's all just about taking the code plugging it in and not going through and reinventing stuff but sometimes you know as I think we saw with the sort of some of the initial implementation of transact for instance it fit nicely in the song too but it didn't fit with other things and so there had to be a little bit of refactor I think shown describing to me to make it a little bit more useful in other context right so again that's the kind of thing you want to do early rather than late if you have to do that kind of refactor when it's you know already being used that makes it much much so when we say send an email to the TSE list right well I mean you know pretty more probably just hyper leather announce or something hyper leather announces I think closed okay so I think you can if it's maintainer focus you hit the maintainer list of it's maybe broader interest than the TSE list if you know that hey this is something you know hi and here's something that I know the fabric guys are also working on maybe just cross post to those lists by the way you just mentioned the maintainers list I was told earlier this was not really announced some people don't know about it there's a meeting you and so if you're not I mean maintainer should speak up yeah I think we might be we might have conflated two things right I mean there was one question on you know measuring do we want to add a measurement originally right on you know or or should projects you know have some notion of reporting about something they might have done to be interacted with something else I think that was the part of the original question than in Angelo on the other side I mean communication right I mean I don't think we have to process everything to death right I mean I'm pretty sure the whole world knows that you know if you wanted to know something I wanted to interoperate with somebody around here we you know who to talk to about secure a niche of all the core people on the projects not the outside world I get that not not the people who aren't very fairly maintainers or whatever but I mean it's not that hard guys right I mean all the repositories are open I mean me I just went and looked I just go and look at the soft tooth code to see if there's anything interesting just takes motivation right like to mark questions just to close on this I mean you were asking but you know the sun learns and stuff like that lessons learned I you know I don't know anybody would object to this it's clearly too early to do that but eventually I think I suggest we move on with the agenda there was also architecture what you want to say something about the status of the architecture was make online it's no report but Nick is traveling okay yeah so the architecture working group has not been doing as well there's a participation as of late I believe Ram has moved jobs so I don't know what exact what is exact statuses we can try to put together a report summarizing the current state but I think the working group to reboot will be very very useful but I do want to point out the whole point of having those reports is to detect this kind of situation so we shouldn't be you know shy about saying well we're kind of in limbo right now because that's what this is all for so I think it's fine to to have a people that says okay we're kind of in limbo right now we don't know what this status really is I think it's useful conversation but there's a bunch of we'll update you next week on this okay and there are other reports as you for next week so please keep an eye don't make me chase you all right so back to the crux of the meeting I listed a bunch of issues again we're back into territory of like process questions related to the TSE for the must pop and so I think we did some of the easy ones last week but if we started at the very end of the course there was the question of the size of the TSE and whether we should increase the size and I kind of combine two aspects of the two proposals into one so this time I separated them because I think the first one is probably not as controversial as the second one so he should be increased before even the last election you know Chris put together I mean brought up this idea that we should probably increase the size of TSE given the number the increasing number of projects we have to have a better chance of a greater representative representation of the different projects and that seemed to gather quite a bit of support when he bought it up and then so there's a question of how many you know we increase it's kind of arbitrary but I figured if we added four people it wouldn't become out of control we seem to have a lot of opinionated people running for the TSE for better and for worse and so the more people the harder it will be to get to any conclusions on anything but I felt like adding four people would be reasonable so my proposal is to extend the size to 15 seats there is the charter specified it's 11 so we probably need the board to endorse our decision but I think that's really just it's not an issue the board will stay fine so that's my proposal extend the size of the TSE to 15 seats I have a broad I have a broad objection my broad objection is why are these TSE items honestly right I put it in my last comment I don't really understand why these are TSE items I guess if we're saying members of the TSE do we want to create a proposal the real vote here is we would like to create a proposal to the board that's as a team United that says that that we want to expand the size to 15 I guess that's really what we're saying here right because Gary Singh as an individual person I could write a note to the board and come up with a proposal and gather stuff outside of here so I guess you know I mean in reading through everything over and over again things about term length term limits diversity like whatever like I don't really think that those are the domain of the TSE so if we're just saying here that we do we as a TSE as a unified front want to create a proposal to the board to extend the size okay that's one thing but then the rest of this stuff I just don't understand why it's in our domain and why we're going to waste umpteen million hours on it okay so I get your point Gary and I think it's a fair point to make but as I said before the problem is there aren't too many people you can ask to answer those questions there is the governing board and there's the TSE that's it right and the governing board means what once every quarter or so and you know if we I'm sorry I don't remember exactly but you know I don't think it's very effective to wait for them to answer all these questions so maybe I'm naive but I thought those issues were not necessarily controversial and we could quickly address them and then move on to more interesting stuff I do feel a bit you know a frustration from the fact that everybody says that's not the things we want to work on but yet everybody fights through the nail on every single one of those little things because what is this and what is that no they don't but I guess yeah anyway whatever I guess I mean I get the fact that Chris proposed this originally this seems to be a reaction I'm just gonna go on record is saying this all of this and hurrying it up seems to be a reaction to like one or two people's things I that's that's what I don't understand there was never an issue proposed anywhere about this other than there was some ephemeral complaints that were out there no official report no official stuff on this so from that perspective I get it if Chris proposed this and wants to say hey TSE we think we should expand the size and we'd like to take this forward I'm good with that the rest of this stuff I mean it's fine and everybody else wants to vote on it that's fine I'm just gonna go on the record as I'm standing from everything else on the rest of it because I don't think this is our domain and I don't understand why we're voting on it when we don't even know what if you were trying to solve okay I'll tell you one thing I realize the other day because people start adding stuff to the backlog right open issues and it's kind of open-ended and then it puts a lot of burden on us to address them and I thought we really should first make a decision whether we accept those issues or not but you're adding yet more processes and more discussions we then decide whether we should discuss it or not which is in and of itself you know next time and so again maybe they can just solve this and move on so look we just buy another five ten minutes fighting over whether we should do this or not and maybe by now we would have decided then yeah I won't beat this horse to death or no but my point wasn't necessarily purely about this topic it's these types of topics to be clear I mean I proposed this actually before the election before we even knew running and it was really mostly in in response to the fact that we now have and I've lost count of how many projects we have we have about 14 or 15 projects now and that 11 TSE members could not possibly cover even a majority of them right I mean that was realistic I think there's a couple that are likely to get more than one and so I felt that you know the thing to do would be to expand the size to at least make it potential that there would be more representatives from across the range of projects so that was really so it's the proposal to vote on extending or extending and adding the next four I know it's the first one only the first one to make it that extending and we have had to put it out of the issue it's not here sorry so we already have that so again anybody objects to this to the proposal yes Gary do you object to this going to abstain I think that's how it works I think there's a motion to vote and then you vote and then I am asking now if anybody wants to abstain and Gary you want to abstain it's fine we can read it we can write down that you abstain just telling us for this abstaining I'm sorry I was on I muted myself just in case I said something under my breath in the background so I know myself well so I yeah I'm abstaining and I'm just abstaining me staining because I don't think that we should be voting on these types of issues the proof thank you so then the question becomes the next question is we can either leave it as is and it will get you know exercised in the next election or we can say oh we can just ask for more people and there are many different ways we can do that but I'm trying to be simple and say hey we just go back to the list and the staff would have to do that and look at the next four people contact them see they're still interested in being on the board if they're not they just keep them we don't need to know anything and they just keep going until they are full proposal I know there are issues people have said well it creates like a second class citizen I've done some survey although it's not scientific by any I have asked a few people were in that situation who might be called to be you know on the TSC in that second round they say I don't care I'd be happy to be on the TSC okay so if I if I could just tweak that slightly and say what we've done with the first agreed proposal which is to expand into 15 and and we have to recommend this board right because the board is going to have to ratify and modification I was so why don't we as a follow-on say and we recommend that you just pick the next four people and let them serve out this year as well and so we're basically making a recommendation for us to how they deal with this that makes sense you really don't have to do the only thing we have to get board approval for is the size increase yeah I don't know that that's the case in the charter it gives the TSC the right to pick how they hold the election and Alan has signed off on that or mine was a little more than a number has given the TSC the ability to make these decisions the TSC the earlier TSC didn't make these decisions so one to have these kind of things written out and if you want to have a cleaner and clearer election process this is something that the TSC has to figure out and do I'd be fine with telling everybody what to do but no one came to help me to do that so ever stopped you before to Gary my problem proposal I know my problem with this proposal is the election was held 11 members so I voted for 11 people I wanted to be on the board now you're saying well we're just gonna add the next four that that's not what we voted on I would have changed my voting properties had I known I was electing 15 instead of 11 so you're tainting by just throwing in the next four because the election was specifically for 11 people hey can I tell you with like a bit of history that I think might actually like inform your decision-making I think it's normal I think it's normal this is Dave use me I think it's normal it's actually there to have an election between it's actually normal to have an election between a change in a composition of a governing body like the TSC and when it goes into effect so I mean what I talked about with our know the other night was yes vote to expand it but then also say that it sunrises with the next election so that to Mark's point it would mean that we were all electing 15 people right like you're voting change though anyway it's there's a long history in in governing bodies all types of having elections yeah you're voting to say look there's gonna be 15 seats in the next election okay thank you we are using the most voting system that does a preferential ballot so I think the other question there is Dom do those same situations apply you know it's particularly in Mark's case if he voted perfectly for those who got elected I suppose that he has a lot of rights to upset but he has four people he voted for who didn't get elected then the endorsement only platform would be it should still work out okay no no no no no it shouldn't because I did the same thing as Mark I voted I numbered everybody one through eleven and then I gave everybody else the last number yes definitely and then I mean again it's mostly it's clearly not moments I mean I recognize that it's just easy simple someday we could do that but it raises concern then the default is to switch the proposal to we will get into play you know at the next election and we remain with four and he sits for now so I'm ready to vote against it so I move to vote if you need to vote against what that proposed to accept the next four people but there's no point if people don't seem to want to do it we don't I mean we can finalize it we voted on it we voted no we had problems before when we make this decision so I second so what am I voting on am I voting for this proposal or my voting for a proposal against this proposal you're kidding we don't need to do that I'm going to change the proposal to say we're not so they want to make it official we are rejecting this proposal that's on the agenda the second one which says to get started we had the next four candidates from the last election that's what has been my motion I'm still confused so I'm going to do the other way anybody want to approve this okay so it's rejected move on unanimous rejection that's a first I said looks like we all voted the same again I don't even think we need to have anything else decided we just leave it that way by default it means it cannot be come to play at the next election yeah and and I would suggest I would suggest term length and term limits be left to the board well there's no no need to do an action because we're not changing anything so let's just skip them now we're making a recommendation the board had received yeah no but I'm saying term limits and term length we're not changing anything that exists now like we're not making it oh they work just so people understand those may follow this is there was a suggestion when we started talking about adding seats that maybe we should change the term so that about half would be for two years another half the one year for the first time and then we would stagger like membership so that they would be some ongoing but Brian killed the proposal I mean he suggested we kill it on the basis that if you look at the results we have that there's been turned over with some overlap there are some incumbents that seem to stick and so we have continued anyway so a lot of the items on this list are just items that I broke out and emails and discussions that were going on and I typed them in here if you look they're like they were like one sentence is one sentence at the beginning from an email so that these items got on the list is not indicative necessarily a huge sport or anything like that right so but it's good capturing that these things came up and we resolved them so we don't have these circular things where somebody brings it up again that's why I put those proposals on okay so can I move that we keep the length the same that we don't change the limit well you could move that we vote against we vote and then people vote against the things as they're working just trying to get it to one so that we just move on so I'm collapsing the two proposals that we don't change anything with regards to the term limit or the term what the only thing that comes up confusing is when we make these verbal changes to proposals and nobody knows what they're voting on and nobody knows what was recorded so we just you vote on these two things as I read that you take like two minutes so just to be clear I actually afterwards read write the resolutions in the issue so with the point you to the to the minutes but first one keep the term left to one year over second anybody objects yes oh wait no sorry yeah I'm you wouldn't help there yeah yeah there it didn't mean that nobody objects right yes actually came up again the two days ago I need to do it so my proposal is we say no it's because of the staff now only doing the results of voting actions and such but if you did want the more detailed pieces then that's what you would need to be this Sunday so for those words at the meeting the discussion came up actually but what was the expectation in terms of like what's mean it is that we only need to actually write down in the minute the resolutions because if you want to know the details of the discussion there's the recording you can consult second move no yeah okay from the beginning we would be done like in two calls and forget a bit harder unfortunately it has to do with membership diversity and if you look at the thread you'll realize so the way was this rather initially it was really targeted I almost want to say against idea against the situation we are in where we ended up with six people and on the board to put the limit 25% and then the discussion kind of you know went around the city there are many dimensions issue including gender projects I thought there was no clear platform it's a bit over the map as we've even seen in this very meeting here they're not even all the idea was agreed it's not like there's some block voting going on here you know and I think that the different look the whole threat is I'm not gonna bring it up as a whole thread is based on the premise that somehow or other there's something you know dark hand of IBM moving stuff you know as I've had many discussions and I know it has similar discussions with people there was nobody knew who was running until the phone started I mean so we didn't I was surprised to see so many people from IBM I did not vote for all the people from IBM I don't know why I was and so and there is no you know I can say this but there was no internal oh my god everybody vote for all the IPMers kind of thing going on so it happened and that's largely because you know that's where a lot of the interest in hyperledger is now is that a healthy no I don't necessarily say that it is I think that it would be great to get a lot more engagement from other places but the complaint was coming from a place where there is almost no contribution and so it's kind of in my mind I don't think we have a problem that we're solving and I don't think that limiting who could be on it if I number or percentage or you know anything is going to necessarily solve the problem if we want to have diversity then we have to be working much harder at growing diversity and the contributions it's a simple and then and that also applies to you know whether it's gender diversity or racial diversity or ethnic diversity all these things apply right we you know I think it's fundamentally important that the focus on trying to sort of set any kind of arbitrary sort of quote is or anything like that as much as it is we should be working to make sure that there are enough people you know there are women in the in the project that there's likely to be somebody nominated in the TSE from that population of women that are engineers working on the project you know as much as it is for you know somebody from China or India or Europe or whatever right I mean it's it's really up to us as a community to be much more effective at being engaged than it is to set some arbitrary numbers so I'm totally opposed to making any kind of changes much as I'd like it to be that there are less ideas on the TSE but that's just caring I didn't I didn't even vote for myself so I think it is made on second motion by Chris Gary, Gary, wait, Nathan is trying to talk. It is important to acknowledge that there is an external PR issue at play here and especially for those projects that are not fabricated, it poses a significant recruiting barrier to us when there is an external PR problem. I don't think that anyone internals a project that there's an IBM cabal or somehow some conspiracy about how participation would work on the TSE. I would say we have really good working relationships with all the people who were elected and you know part of why I think why they were elected is because you know as individual candidates generally they develop a speedy life element as a business and I also have the same concern that Chris expressed that it's easy to overreact to this issue and add a lot of guardrails or constraints that make it hard to get the best participants on the technical series and I really worry that we will have kind of an overreaction we'll add a bunch of guardrails that make it difficult to get the best participants who will do the work and we'll you know really represent the development that's going on as Chris pointed out. So my opinion here is that in talking with the IBMers involved and the other members of the TSEs the ones from IBM are the ones that are actually rather embarrassed by this and think maybe we can talk about it and work with each other to make sure that we don't get a situation going forward and I really like Brian's feedback on the thread about you know people are representing the benefits of hyperledger as a whole in terms of when and how they run for election and I think that discussion alone has done a lot of what we need to have happen to solve the problem. Gary? Well said Nathan actually we're going to need to talk about I did want to say something I think you know but an interesting so not that I you know think that we should be voting on this type of stuff but you know an interesting thing that if we're the TSE you know whatever the technical lead in the technical steering committee and we do think that there's some stuff that could be done to you know the overloaded term you can you can read my little last post if you want to right on you know diversity or whatever then I mean maybe we should think about things that we could enact or that we could do not as like official things that we would do if we think that there's I'm just throwing one out there not to be whatever if we think that there's not enough women involved in hyper hyperledger in general right Do we have ideas about what we would do to do that right are there people who were working on working groups that are making major contributions for an aren't as like known right in the community right I mean so if there's things like that it seems like that might be stuff that could be interesting for us to like tackle and not not even it's not even coming up with a process or whatever just like ideas on like what would we do should be doing these types of events when we want to do X, Y, Z you know can we as individuals in our projects group crew people I think you I think you get the idea that might be you know interesting So with a lot of kind of say I mean there is a diversity working groups that just got started and one of the goals is that survey to figure out where the problems are and using that we can start having recommendations whether that's the TSC or to the board and saying these are the types of events we want to do the type of engagements we want to have to encourage participation I think I definitely I will say I come from a background where the diversity topic comes up a lot around me and particularly anything when it happens as a quota and I get involved in it I'm not really happy and it's like a doubt in your head did I get accepted because I was a diversity candidate or did I get accepted because I was all So things like this make me not want to touch it because that doubt is always in the back of my mind so I'm 100% with we need to get more votes we need to have a more engaging community we need people to feel like their voice count and I think that's what we should be working on and if people have ideas and suggestions I definitely recommend joining our diversity working group call because I mean I would say I think some of the conversations especially we've been a little bit far in terms of how many people get to come every time but there is an active engagement there and people are very interested in solving this problem I think that's great and to be engaged with DCI like the other activities you don't have to join the phone call we've got the mail list and chat and everything else I do want to point out Tracy Costa in the week is something very much along the same lines as when I was talking about so I'm sensing a trend toward saying we don't want to change anything with regard to diversity in this context and we can wait for the DCI working group if they come up with some recommendation would we consider that plan or not but for now it seems like we're not ready to do anything Right and I know could I make a statement It's not prepared or anything but you know I wanted to echo Brian's comments in the discussion that you know you're voting for individuals not for companies or projects but the flip side of that is when you're voting for individuals you tend to vote for people you know and you know that you like the contributions they've made and so there's that conflict that you know you need to the people from other projects need to I don't want to say be more vocal per se but they need to get their name out there because you tend to not just read the bios and vote just based on the bio right you vote for the people you know and think we'll do a good job So there's a PR aspect of it for the people that want to run for the technical theory I'm not sure how to promote that Proposal we can put forward that not doing anything Yeah I mean do nothing I think you know it's back to record the decision so that it doesn't just get really reopened anytime So you guys didn't decide on this Like if we actually agree that we don't want to change anything we should record that Okay so then I'll move that we the TSE agrees that putting quotas or limits on the diversity of the TSE is That we don't put limits on That we should not That's right yeah that we should not put quotas or limits on the TSE TSE members diversity Yeah You know I grabbed that text that I grabbed from the You want me to type it in the charter Well there's the charter text that says blah blah blah that could be an affirmative proposal and then we would just vote against that The charter text for the TSE itself There was a snippet of text for the board that says not more than No no I'm wrong it was for the TSE for the initial phase Right so the proposal the affirmative proposal would be to apply that on an ongoing basis and then you would vote against that No there's no point No I'm actually saying that I don't want the proposal that people are saying they want to agree on It's already made text but yeah Yeah I think the TSE channel is good to put the proposal together the new police Chris I only have two minutes left so Yes that should be enough to just say yes You are so optimistic Arnaud I second it I did it but no we are So I wrote the TSE affirms that there should be no limits or quotas on TSE membership diversity I second that You approve There is point you don't want to spend time talking about this I'm glad we made some progress And hopefully we'll be close to the end of these kind of issues But in any case I also want to point out that there is no other topic that it was proposed to put on the agenda The agenda is a wiki it's open for everybody to use And so if there are topics you feel like we would spend you know it'd be better to spend our time on Please tune on the wiki for the agenda when we build the agenda I try to build the agenda at least to have the page set up by Monday For three days to finalize the agenda In the meeting we exercised yesterday about talking about the maintainer's responsibilities And as part of this we talked about the different files that we expect all the repos in hyperladiates to have Things like you know a code owner We got to what exactly should have in the maintainer's file for instance But how you maintainers be identified is a request from the staff maintainers And it's not that key how we achieve that So I think we need to talk a little bit about those things that we'll put on the agenda And more jewelry speaking you know I think it's fair to bother in just because projects can A different time with their own ways of doing things At the same time we do create new projects now You know they come from scratch like Ursa that didn't stop with anything specific If they don't have a specific reason not to do it one way or another right So I think it'd be good for us to define what should be the default