Hiero TSC Meeting - 2026/08/25

Hey Leman. >> Hey. How's it going? >> Good. Good morning. >> Good morning. I was just this morning reading your hip. It looks great. >> Oh, you like it? Okay, cool. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Good. Yeah. I was I guess I'm gonna bring that up. Um >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Looks good to me. >> Thanks. Are you going to um uh Denver? >> I am. That'll be fun. >> Yeah. Cool. >> Yeah, it'd be good to see you there. >> Yeah, it' be good to see you, too. If you the the girls um my girls have started school, they're four now. >> When I started, they were little babies. >> Wow. >> And now they're all growing up and going off to school. >> Amazing. >> I know. >> Yeah. >> Giving us the anxiety. [laughter] >> Isn't it amazing how fast time flies? >> It's crazy. And I've been really reflecting on it past couple days. It's just, you know, I thought, you know, learning stuff about ancient Rome and thinking about how they they just live their own lives just like we are living our lives here and so much time has passed and >> it makes you wonder about, you know, the decisions that you make. How consequential are they? you know how we uh how I like you know put so much gravity into stuff and I'm like you know [laughter] in a thousand years >> that thing I stressed over a thousand years >> exactly [laughter] >> Yep. Yep. Exactly. And then it's like what what is really important and what should >> you know what should I be stressing about or >> not stress question. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I agree. >> What do you think it is? >> Me. Oh, I'm following the Lord. Um, I think Jesus has called me to live a life for him. That's what matters. >> Yeah. Um, yeah. Cool. We'll we'll talk about that. What that work looks like, you know, in Denver if you want. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sure. >> Cool. Yeah. It's exciting. All right. Hello everybody. Hello. Hi So let's wait some more minutes for all the people to attend. Um happy to already send the link to the agenda here in the chat. It's um that one and I will send a notification in the different channels that TSC starts. Good. So, let me share the agenda for today with you. >> Good morning. So more and more people coming up. Um but we have a super packed agenda today. Um so I will directly start with the introduction. Um so welcome to the HYROT TSC call. Um this is the call of the technical steering committee of the hyro project and it's a public call which means um everybody is welcome to join this call or any other of our TC uh TSC calls we are doing to be fair every call in the hyro project is is a public call. We have a public agenda. You can find links in in the minutes of those calls on our website or on GitHub where you can find information about all the different meetings we are doing and have scheduled and um if you miss a meeting most of them I even recorded. So if you go into the Kaganda and and go back in in time to like last week um you can find an overview um of a recording and an overview of of the minutes. Some of them are II based. Um, which gives you a good expression on what happened in in the past. And um oh yeah and before I miss that and since we do that as open as possible and and want to ask you all to bring in your thoughts and and to discuss with us we have two roots which is the um antitrust policy of the Venox Foundation and the code of conduct of the Venu Foundation and with that let's jump to the agenda. agenda for today. So as said we have a quite packed agenda. I I assume we will not make it through all the topics. Let's see how far we can come. So uh since some time I start each of the TSC meetings with a short recap of what happened in the previous TSC meeting and and last week um we had a final voting on a new proposal what brings in additional um repositories to the solar project to make it more more flexible and provide um more flexible builds. regarding um subcomponents of a network when you for example want to depend on on a branch and and so on. Next to that, we voted on on another hip and had some discussions regarding um the maintainer and um commit how to say it like um with what what those people should do and what we expect um from maintainers and committers in the project. Um we had a short overview about the reaction that is happening soon and we discussed about um the TSC internal channel which currently is on um sak which is sub optimal um and we decided that we will give discord a try. Um I already tried it this week to to set it up. Some things failed. So I wrote a message to to RFDT earlier today just for you, Brandon. So So I'm on it. I already have a TLC private channel in Discord. It looks like I failed to invite people to it. That's that's the current state, but but I'm trying to to get this up and and running. Okay. Um coming to the agenda for this week. First of all, we have the any updates and events. um from the community which is normally the point where I ask everybody here in the call if you have some news about a project if you have some news about any any upcoming events that are happening where hyro is a topic where maybe you give a session about hyro and so on. Um before we come to the one that is mentioned here, um I want to ask the the audience of of this call if somebody would like to add something here, has something to share. I see Michael Kendo had shared something in um the chat saying over the coming days hashcraft online will be publishing clips from the wear evo panel in Las Vegas first one can be shown on X. So that was an event we had in the near past, right? Where um Michael had a session on where Evo I know Jessica had a session too and it looks like um yeah some of those clips now make it to social media. Thanks for sharing Michael. Um the other news we have is the um workshop that NG is doing on AI um which is maybe like a subtopic of of Hyrole um because it's mostly about AI power tools and how you can use it for development. But what Angelina is doing here is she shows it on the Hierro project and shows what what she did on the Hierro project where we even today if if we come to that point um have a short um introduction to to something new as said we have a lot of topics. So let's move forward. Um yeah, one one topic I would bring to this group is since the elections for the TSC are coming and starting today nominations are open um you will see that the oops not open in a new window then you don't see it that the big text here is is a ring that gives an overview about the um erection and um nomination phase. I assume Jessica has some things to share on on that because we had some internal discussions. Um but why I mentioned it now is because all maintainers are able and contributors are able to to vote on it. Um and that is why um some people from the community um seen that as a good point to do some some cleanup of our maintainer and and committer groups and thanks to the analytics project that are currently being created at at hierohhackers. um you get quite good information about um are there any any accounts who have not contributed for a long time and so on. And um what happened is that pull requests have been created um that do the opposite of nominating new maintainers or committers but removing such people and um as far as I know if if they took like my my suggestion so I have not created it but um Sophie is here. So Sophie, this is like everybody who has not done any contribution in 2026, right? >> Um that was Jessica's pull request initially. These ones are for a given uh team collection. >> Okay. If you've not been inactive in the repositories that you have access to. >> Sure. But but again since since the beginning of ah for 6 months ah okay okay because I I did the suggestion to say like since the beginning of the year because this is even even a little bit longer than than 6 months. Um any anyway [clears throat] so my my hope is and you see that this already happened that people came to it and said oh no we have here a person that should stay for sure and I mean if maintainer says that that's totally fine right so our idea here is not to show who must be removed it's more like hey maintainers have a look those are the statistics um so please check it and maybe I already answered keys your question Oh, because I saw your hand up and and and down again. >> Yeah. I I I just cuz we we talked about this yesterday with Sophie and just as a reminder, the policy is um someone can be removed if they're not active for 6 months and they cannot be contacted. So, yeah. Yeah. But if if this is just a like guidance, then then that's I mean obviously every project can make their own decisions about adding or removing maintainers. So I just wanted to say that that's the policy. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and I totally agree. And so for me this is not like everybody now need to v vote plus one and all those people need to be deleted. This is more like okay here are you know um the changes that if we would take this restrict um how it would look like and everybody is fine and that's already happened to say like oh no this this person should stay and so on and so on. Diane, >> so um thanks thanks for the explanation and thanks Keith for the clarification. could um could it looked like um and the only reason I tweaked to this was cuz yesterday morning I looked at all the messages the um the the did SDK it looked like a number of us were removed um for the the SDK for the did did work and if you could just go to that screen on [sighs] let me see if I can find it again there were a lot of >> did SDK Python or did SDK script >> just the did SD K stuff and Alexander might be on here too because I saw that he was also removed. >> Yeah. Yeah, that should not happen. So, um >> yeah. >> Um okay, I assume this one is the not the one. >> Yeah, maybe. Okay, so where you go where it says use my name as an example. So explain um >> is no longer a member of that king. So is that the configuration change that's proposed or is that already >> proposed? No, no, no, no, no, no. That is proposed and now the team could vote on it or and and this is the team right here. You see the key >> and when you say hey please so like uh when you write Diane should stay that's just good enough then it will directly done it not even [clears throat] proved or or discussed or whatever right this is just hey this is >> how it could look like and now please clean up so so that we can update each and everyone >> uh each and every project. Yeah. >> And I'm I'm using myself as an example because you know this is and especially for this project because we lost our funding for working on it. Yeah. >> And we became inactive. However, we are working mightily in the background to get funding for it. So I prefer not to have Alexander and other folks re removed from it until we are sure we're not going to get funding. But it looks like we will shortly. So um but and it didn't make me crazy or anything like that or paranoid. was good to see. Um, but I just it looked a little bit in the the wording of that that it was um that they had been removed and I was concerned. >> No. Yeah. Yeah. And and and I agree with that. So um that is not the case. This is always like a preview what would happen if this one is merged. >> Okay, that's that's what I wanted. >> The validation. Yeah. and and please stand up and say, "Hey, please don't delete me." That's totally fine, right? That's that's what we want because we want to remove the persons who are really not active anymore. But from for many projects like so Sophie who did this has no idea who those persons are. So it's now done by mass and now it's up to you to to clean it up. >> And it's really good work, Sophie. So keep it up and thank you. Um, but yeah, I just wanted I saw that Alexander was on the call today, too, and I'm sure he woke up yesterday thinking something similar. So, um, yeah, I just wanted to get that on. Cool. >> Yeah, the the way the um configuration document is created, it's it's also difficult to create these proposals. Um, so as you've seen, you you may be that there isn't like one SDK did team. >> Yeah. >> For example. So that that might be why there are several um several things. >> Yes. >> So I I've tried to group them by um like the big team that controls the sub teams if if that makes sense. Um but yeah what what Hendrickk said is this is just done from like a security permission perspective in terms of if we have granted rights permissions um and if those permissions haven't been used then there could be just a security use case to clear them up but I don't know about who a lot of these names are or or what the intention behind anything is. So I think um the the all these things I typed them up manually but they should really be saying very clearly this is like a proposal um to change these I haven't added my own rules so it's just simply inactive or not um you know so some people have requested like re readding uh certain managers or something that I I'm not aware of so as as examples um definitely so you can I I think you can block the pull requests from merging. >> Yeah. >> By requesting changes if if that's that's sort of what you want. Um I think as a group of the maintainers you could even close the pull request if you disagree with the idea entirely. Um but some of the um pull requests people have just been making like suggestions to individual members. Sometimes they're suggesting more people to remove, sometimes they're suggesting certain people to be removed as well. And I ideally I get like feedback from a lot of the maintainers. So it's not not just one maintainer's opinion. So I would really appreciate like everyone taking a look at that. This is just let's say a security permission proposal, but it doesn't um you know that's just one way of viewing things. And it it does have to be voted by all the maintainers anyway to be able to pass. >> Um, witch, you have hands up. >> Yeah, I apologize for this. U Leman only has six minutes left before he has to leave >> and uh we he really wanted to have an opportunity to talk about his topic or vote on it. But this is a great thing, Sophie. And in fact, I'd like to if if we can just switch gears for a moment, we can come back to this. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I I already have opened it and even if there are other things up front, I would like to to jump to this update on on HIP one. Um and um I assume Michael Michael Gawa wants to to give a presentation to it. Um, so >> yeah, can you can you just uh pull up the PR? Um, >> and I think what I can do is give me a second. I can do it like this and like this. Um, >> I Yeah, just a I was just going to say a couple quick things. um when we we we made this migration uh from Hideera into Hierro when when the codebase was donated um for open-source uh practices um and what happened in that migration which is on me is that uh some of the hideerod dependent language uh remained in there. So this was caught and um this PR this change is as an opportunity to really kind of um get an understanding of how this works and remove the Hideera dependent language. Um so instead of like talking about Hideera as the network, it is a network. It is a it is a like an instance of a hyroleddger and what it essentially does now uh it's going to describe what's already true. So that you guys the TSC are the sole authority for approving HIPS into hyro and whether any network that includes Hideera adopts a feature is is that network's own decision and that's independent in both directions. Um >> yeah, >> and there's also a section in the uh the HIP template uh for other networks so they can um add that uh acceptance decision in there as well. >> I even want Yeah. >> Yeah. Um so just some historical background in 2024 the TSC we agreed, oh yeah, we need to take this Hera stuff out. We need to basically do what Michael just did. and we all agreed on it and then nobody actually ever did it. Uh [snorts] so we've never approved HIPP 1. We've never made the changes we said in 2024 we should and this cleans it up. It makes it clear that Hierro is independent of Hideera. It makes it clear that Hideera is independent of Hierro. Um so I do have to drop and I'm sorry I have a thing I can't get out of. But I just want to say yeah I I vote for what Michael did and I think the TSC in 2024 would have voted for it if we had voted. Uh but we just didn't vote back then. So that's all I have to say. Thanks. >> Thanks, Leman. >> Thanks, Lemon. >> Um, okay. So, are there first of all any any questions on that one? >> Yeah. So, I had a question. Uh obviously um uh other than some typos that we're seeing on the screen here about Pyro SDKs uh hero u the on the top which is impact on SDKs. >> Ah okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. the um some of these changes were I mean obviously were done as part of the move to um to LFDT. So I I'll make sure that you know true where there are some references to a particular network like Hideera uh you know may not make sense but making sure that we kind of diff through this to make sure that uh that we maintain kind of the integrity and kind of reduce any avenues for forking that might result. >> Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Maybe maybe maybe adding adding some thoughts on that. So for sure the goal here is not to remove any don't know the best English word benefits or whatever that that Hideera has. Right? So um it was never the goal that Hideera somehow controlled Tairo or Hyrule somehow controlled Hyera. was from my point of view always a goal that um hyro can be used for by anybody by by any network. Um but we need to make sure and that is even written in the charter that um the Hideera network um as the enterprise grade network that is that is using Hyrule um stays safe which which means um that if something comes up maybe we need to have additional configurations and and stuff like that but we should try to avoid that. for example, Hideera has I don't know that the need to create their own repo to fork something. So that for 100% should not happen and and I hope this is for phrased in a way that that um this is clear. Diane, >> I I was just going to say um it thanks for for doing this. Um I I'd love to take a a deeper look at it and review it uh in in terms of the LFDT governance and stuff that we've done in the past. Um so and and maybe correct a few of the typos too. So yeah. >> Um yeah. So this this is an it it's a governance kind of thing. So I think we if we could take a minute and not a minute but maybe a week and just um review it. Um, and then I think that the stuff about the SDKs could might be a good clarification point to keep in um a statement about how this would affect the SDKs. But um yeah, so I think that's you know that's that's my two cents is if we can give give us ourselves a week to to take a review of it then that would be wonderful. the the impact on the SDK part that is in the HIP template and that serves as a guide for people to submit HIPS. So there's a section in there if something touches an SDK and that uh mis that misspell had had been there and and I just corrected that. >> Yeah, that's that's fine. Yeah, just just a chance to uh if we got a chance to read through this, it would be great for people to have a comment period. Um, >> and just to just to compare it maybe with some of the other LFT governance stuff, I don't see anything really egregious in it at all. So, that's not what I'm saying. But I think just a chance to to look through it would be great and have maybe a a oneweek comment period before we activate pull the trigger on it. >> Um, I'm fine with everything. We can even now, you know, scroll through it and and have a look um up up to what you want, what what other people from the TSC want. >> I mostly want more coffee and a chance to read it. [laughter] >> What is What is the West saying of you? Um, I would say, yeah, it' be great to to have a chance to read through it and uh, yeah, just I I agree with what Diana was saying. >> I multitasking, but I I agree with Dan, too. I think it's it's been a pretty good precedent that, hey, if the vote comes up for something, we usually take a week to think about it and then we vote the next week. >> Right. Right. Sure. Um I let me put it here, right? Because um when I did that um the link was not there. Now we have the link here. Um so that everybody can can have a look at it and um that maybe we can vote then then next week on that one. Okay to everybody. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um next topic election and voting pro so moving one back election and voting process clarification. Um that is Jessica you right? >> Yes. Yes. Thank you so much. So this is mostly um clarification on the actual process because uh as you know today uh the nominations have started are officially open and they're going to be running until August 25 sorry September 8th uh from from right now to September 8th. However given that we are going to have uh we have three different seats uh up for election. We have two maintainer seats that uh maintainers are going to be eligible to vote for and we have one seat that the TSC is going to be voting for. So, let me can you show the picture that I sent you yesterday? >> Sure. Give me a second. Let me just Oh, I I assume I can just open a tab and drag the picture into it because that is Yeah. Yeah. That is a really good >> um description out of it. Yeah, thank you Chad GPD. [laughter] But yeah, I tried to put it in in a visual way so that people can can >> Oh, what have I done? >> Understand the two options that we have here. So this is we need the TSC to vote on one of these two scenarios and how are we going to run elections. So um if the I I think we do have quorum today. So if we can make a decision today that will be awesome. But let me explain the two scenarios given the positions that we have open. So the first scenario elections start on the 25th which is today and go until September 8th. And nominations are going to be needing to be filed as either a maintainer TSSE or a TSSE voted seat depending on what the person that is being nominated wants his nomination to be voted by. he wants to be voted by maintainers or he wants to be voted by TSC. So depending on that the nomination will be filed as such and then from September 9 to September 20th the two ballots run in parallel one where maintainers vote on two maintainer seats and another one where the TSC votes on one uh TSC voted seat. So these two ballots are running in parallel and on September 22nd uh all the results are announced. So that's one of the scenarios. Uh and the TSC chair position is basically the winner of the TSC voted seat that will that will become the winner of the TSC chair position. And the second scenar Yeah. Hendrickk you look like you have a question. >> I I yeah I I would disagree. I would I sorry when I look at this picture somehow I have not seen the TSC chair position. What is [laughter] >> for the TSC chair I would not say like the person who won the TSC voted seat bot will become the TSC chair. I mean that would mean that people who are currently on the TSC would not be allowed to to become the TSC chair. I I would say that afterwards we do a separated voting on on the >> Okay. Okay. For both chair and co-chair, right? Because you wanted a co-chair as well. Okay. So, let's uh let's pretend that little uh drawing at the bottom is not there. But yeah, this is what scenario one looks like. And and scenario two, h this is a little bit simpler. So basically we from August 25th to September 8th all nominations are filed as equal like that you're just going to be occupying a TSC maintainer seat. That's all the nominate nominees need to know. And then from September 9 to September 20th the first ballot runs where maintainers select two candidates from the list of candidates. And after that, from September 21st to October 2nd, the second ballot where TSC members vote for the third candidate runs, which I think this is kind of similar to what we did last year. Uh, and then on October 6th, all the results are announced. So, uh, take a look at these two scenarios and if the TSC can help me make, um, a decision here, uh, we would like to post this in the blog, [clears throat] uh, for people to know what's going on. >> Yes, Diane. So, in scenario two, depending on how you read it, and I really haven't had enough coffee yet this morning, so I apologize. >> [laughter] >> um are the are the only people eligible for um the TSC third candidate the maintainer people who have nominated themselves for a maintainer seat. So that would the way I'm reading that second scenario it could be interpreted is that only maintainers are eligible. M uh >> no uh so on the the first the from September 9 to September 20th mandainers are eligible to vote uh first on two candidates and then from the remaining candidates that are not voted yet those will be added in a second ballot and that the TSC is going to be eligible uh the TSC is going to be voting on a third candidate for for that. So that that's how the second scenario looks like. But these are one ballot first and then the other next. >> Yeah. So yeah, this is what I'm trying to get to the clarify. He's he's scrolling to the section. So >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Your question is about um see >> who's who who is the TSSE allowed to vote? Is it just a pool of maintainers that the TSSE is allowed to vote from? I guess is the way I read that diagram and I would just want to go for the clarifying piece here. >> Let me see. I'm trying to find that portion also in the charter. But yeah, I mean it will be basically a a pool of nominations of maintainers >> and it so the pool that the TSC can choose from for that TSC nominated state is only people who are maintainers. Correct. Is that what you're inter interpreting it? Yes. And that's that's what I was looking for. >> Um, >> so it's it could not be a a just a community person or a community participant. >> I I want to make sure that that is also in the charter that also matches the charter. But I think that is correct. Uh given that the maintain I think I remember reading somewhere that the >> it's not saying I I was not 100% sure but it's not saying that um on on the erect three TC members but it not says three TC members who must be maintainers. So I have readed so far that the maintainers vote but the nominee can be anybody but I'm not a native speaker right that is that is how how I um have interpreted it that's that's why I do not see the problem Diane sees >> we we had also enduser seats in the past that are not yet >> up for elections just yet they're going to be one of them I I believe is going to up for elections in 2027. But yeah, the these these two the seats that are for election right now, there are two maintainer seats and one DSC voted seat, which I think that's the position that Hendrik is occupying right now. So I I assume that that position needs to be also a maintainer or correct me if I'm wrong, >> it could be anybody in in theory. That's that's the point. We do not define >> yeah we do define who votes but but not who must sit there and and the problem with the left scenario what what I'm seeing is that if you now nominate yourself you need to decide do I nominate myself for the one of the maintainer TSC seats or for the TSC >> voted seat or for both you know like uh like which makes it quite complex and since everybody is allowed to get nominated or to nominate themselves. We could do like scenario two with you nominate yourself because everybody can can get nominated and then the maintainers vote for the um two maintainer seats and from everybody who has so we have two winners then but we will have a couple of nominees who are not winning that. So we only will announce the true winner. no other additional numbers or informations and then the TSC can vote on from all the nominations on a third person that that will come into the TSC. The other point is if we would not do it like that, we would need another nomination phase um after the the first bagot. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think you explained it uh perfectly. I mean yes uh all the candidates that were not selected on the first nomination will go for the second one. >> So the only change I would have in this diagram then is in the second ballot that it come that the seat is the third candidate is elected from the remaining pool >> of uh TSC maintainer nominations >> and that's that's that that would clarify that for me. So if we're all on the same page then we're all on the same page. But in order to clarify that it that kind of makes it like they could randomly select a third candidate from non-nominated people. But yes, that's just >> unless unless we run in a situation where only one nominee is remaining then automatically would that person become the TSC voted candidate? I mean I I hope that's not the case but I think we'll figure out once nominations >> yeah are filed. Yeah. >> Yeah. Then we have a bigger problem, >> but I just think clarifying that second and I know you'll have to run it through Claude or something to add a little bit of >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> From the remaining pool. I think we do that um at the governing board level at the LFDT if all the nominations are there. There's a um we've got some they have other votes too. So yeah, there's that's the way I would think it would be phrased is that from the remaining pool, the third candidate is select selected. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. As as on the tech I >> Okay. Yeah. >> How does the TSC like the timelines? That is the most important thing. I mean, I want to make sure that the TSC uh likes the timelines here. It works for me and and I like the parallel ballots personally. >> Do you like the parallel ballots? Do you like the first the first scenario? >> So I do just because um I don't know it it otherwise it it takes quite a long time to go through all this. Are people concerned that people will get confused having two ballots going on at the same time? Um, go forward, Jessica. >> No, I mean, I think I was going to repeat something that you mentioned that it's going to be confusing to for the nominee to say, "Hey, do I want to run for a TSA container or a TSC or both?" >> I'm I'm okay with either one. I I I don't have a preference between one and two other than I just looked at scenario one and I said, "Sure, we can get it all done by the end of September. That sounds great." Uh but if we want to do it scenario two then um you know I'm okay with that as so I actually I would say like for the voter it's no different right? So for the people who who vote but um on on scenario one let's say like who do we have here? Michael Gaba. Let's say Michael Gaba wants to to nominate himself for for the TSC. In scenario two, he just nominates himself. And scenario one, he needs to decide, do I nominate myself for the maintainer seat, >> for the ESC seat, or in worse, for both? And then both vote him, you know. So, [clears throat] >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. >> That's the point. >> Yeah, that's the point. >> Scenario two at least gives you a a second attempt. [laughter] >> If you lose the first round, you get to go for the second one. >> Yeah. Okay. So, can can we do an official TSC vote uh on the right scenario? >> Yeah, sure. We can do it. Um, let's ask Georgie. >> Um, yeah, it's fine. I think Yeah, >> perfect. Thank you, Richard. >> Uh, I heard nothing. I've just seen that you unmuted yourself. I assume it was a yes. >> Very fast. Is a very fast yes. [laughter] >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Uh, Migan, I cannot hear Migan. Can anybody? >> No. >> Okay, let's continue with with Michael Caner. Megan, maybe you can write in the chat. >> Yeah, I think scenario two makes sense. >> Yeah, Megan wrote scenario two makes sense, too. And we have Aex. Yep. For two. >> Yeah, I do the same. So, we will take scenario two and then we can update the um erection um page here um with with that put it in place and as said starting from today um erections are open. Um actually that means um to to make that clear it's uh what we are talking about are the seats that currently um Richard Stoan and I'm on all three are totally fine to selfnominate theirel again um but everybody else for sure can nominate themselves too. you find the link here um on top of the agenda to do so. >> Thank you. Yeah, there's um sample nomination there uh that you guys are gonna find. So, yeah, looking forward for that. And I think Diane has a question. Do you have a question, Diane? >> Nope. Um I think I've stood Sorry. Nope, I don't have a question. I did my hand still up. Nope. I'm all >> No problem. No problem. >> There you go. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much everybody. >> Perfect. Thank you Jessica for for preparing that. And here you see the example nomination. Okay. So next one is and I don't know if we have an update on that. Um we have um this git vote. Um Tai is here. So Ty, can can you give an update on on that one? Uh yeah, so I've been talking with Richard um and it does feel like there might be some edits to it. So I think it didn't pass twice now. Um so I'm going to go and kind of rework some of the wording and then hopefully when I come back we can get quum and vote it through. But um yeah, it's it's back at me to edit the hip. So it's not coming up for vote. >> So yeah. So So Ty, what do you think about if I close this issue and once you are ready, you come back to us so that it's not like every week on the agenda? >> Would that work or do you prefer to have it open and and come back to it like already next week? >> No, it's fine if you close it. Yeah. Okay, good. Then we will wait um for any any update on you. Um so the next is um last week we already um showed that we worked on this responsibilities of committers and maintainers addition to our documentation. I've seen some um comments from from Diane. Thanks for that. I tried to add all of them or said or since they are like kind of follow up things marked them as it it should should be in follow up. So um I have not seen any any other um concerns or questions which gives me the impression that mostly for everybody it's it's fine because we have some follow-ups that will come in in future. So if somebody from from the TSC would be so friendly to approve that one because then we can get it in merch it and move um onward from from that state. That would be great. Um good. So the next one is again Jessica I think it's >> I don't think it's Jessica. It's Jesse. >> It's Jesse. >> Yeah. No. So, yes, this this is something that Jesse asked me to to put on the TSC. Well, I I mentioned that I will put it for him. So, is Jesse here? >> Go ahead, Sophie. I think you you probably have information. >> I have a little bit of context, but Jesse is on the call. Jesse, are you able to speak? >> Yeah. So, I have a request of um becoming a committer at the Hierro SDK, the JavaScript SDK. And um I think I have enough context about uh Hyro and its technologies. Uh I have been doing a few contributions for um a couple of months now. And um yeah, I would like to know if there is any specific kind of work that I have to do in order to reach that position. So uh ready to hear from the maintainers >> maybe. Oh Sophie, go go go forward. last week. Um I think Hendrickk you suggested to as as a first point of contact if the maintainers don't suggest the role to you to instead bring up the issue on on Discord and and suggest it to them to see if that's something that they would want to consider. I think Jesse has already done that on Discord a few months back because I think he he tagged me in but I'm I'm not a maintainer of the JavaScript SDK and I I don't have I I don't know who is um so those options are already exhausted in in in my view. >> So that is maybe maybe saying something. So that is exactly the point. Give me a second keys. I just checked it up and I was not aware of that last week when when that question come up. when I said, "Hey, please do it in Discord." Because that has already been done early July, like on on 6th July, um that question came up and is unanswered um since today. And then last week, Jessica wrote that she will bring it to the TSC. That's that's why I was thinking it's Jessica's topic here. Um Keith, you have hands up. Um I think the path that we discussed was junior committer and then committer. Is that the path we want to follow? >> It's up to the project. So I mean as a project you can say somebody becomes a junior committer or you can say oh there was somebody who is not a junior committer at all but worked on on the project for some months already. So you could make him directly a committer. So the junior committ is something just we added to make it more easy to people to assign issues and stuff like that and and that is what people mostly got after I don't know like two weeks or or three weeks in in in other repositories or after two or or three PRs. Um I mean we can have I have not done that to to be fair. So we can have a a look since I've seen the link here. Let's go to maybe I I can cover two topics with one stone. I I do maybe for the next TSC Hendrickk can I present the uh security designation presentation on making certain repo >> making certain repos security sensitive and I mean this dovetails right into this topic like Jesse I'm I'm sure like uh you know it's wonderful we've gotten your contributions all this stuff but this is a highly sensitive project so you know do we need additional steps before we make someone a committer or do we need to create a a greater separation between committer and maintainer? I think these are all topics we need to discuss. >> So um that means your your suggestion is to like pause this topic for now and and bring in your ideas about security workflows and so on. Um before we continue on that is is that what you suggest Keith just for me to to understand it? >> Yeah. Yes. And I apologize Jesse we are making you the guinea pigg uh in this conversation uh and I apologize for that but yeah I just think we need to sort out some some of the concepts around security for someone to become a committer or maintainer on a sensitive repo. Um I think yeah we just have a responsibility to kind of talk about that. >> Yeah. Um Sophie has hands up and and then I I would like to uh say something too. >> Yeah, we we currently have very lightweight guidelines on the qualifications to become a committer, a maintainer and a triage a junior committer. Um, I have opened up a pull request that tries to create some kind of pillars as guidelines that the individual repositories can um add to the pillars and also um specify the level of difficulty and you know the volume of contributions or the depth of contributions and things. Um, so I think that might complement sort of like the conversation next week where we've both kind of independently come to like a similar conclusion that um the the current um committer and maintainer qualification requirements um is a little bit maybe maybe too vague. In the case of the Python SDK, our problem is was was a little bit different. So my motivation to create this was a little bit different, but we we overlap sort of in terms of some of the actions. Um the issue is in the Python SDK we we have a growing team and the current problem that we have now is at least in my opinion I don't want to mislead people into thinking that they they you know might be on track to be a committer or might be on track to be a maintainer if that's only my individual maintainers opinion. um because we don't have a list of sort of um general qualifications, general pillars that provide like some clear guidance and agreement between maintainers as a whole for the the certain level of the repository. It's it's hard to um get some kind of consensus there and and create a positive image to the rest of the the community. Yeah, just just found it. Too many too many. Thanks uh Danielle for for sharing that. Too many uh open PRs currently in the governance repo with with all the um with all the um like clearing up of of the groups. But but this is the the one you mentioned, right, where you have like the quarification and so on. And I think we talk about two different topics here. Why Sophie is coming from from quarification like uh technical understanding and what is the skill set and so on. Keys is coming more from a security way saying like um how to trust people like even the best engineer could be could be a kind of attacker whatever right? So we have two different um directions we are coming from and I think both are are valid to to be fair. Um and I believe in both we we can become better. Um what I do not want um is that we have a huge pocka based on that. now and and I agree with Keith um there is always the the first person right and uh for the first person it's it's always painful um and and I think that is fine and nobody uh here says oh if that is not solved tomorrow next week whatever we have a huge problem but I I think it should not become a huge blocker and for sure whatever we decide on on those two topics should not um end up in um making external individual people not from anywhere on the world not possible to to contribute to to those repositories right because if we would do that we would not be you know like open and vendor neutral anymore if we say like I don't know only people from companies within the TSC or or within in FFTDT could could contribute then we would not have Sophie here then we would not have Angelina here then we would not have Jesse here and and so on I think that is just um something we really need to take care on that's that's my point of view on that topic um so is it is it fine for everybody that um keys presents next week um his idea about making the core repositories of hyro how more secure is that is that how to phrase it keys? >> Yeah, I mean basically the the proposal in a nutshell is that there's additional security requirements for someone to become a committer or maintainer of those repos. I also think that the suggestion one of the other suggestions is that you know it's been brought up many many times that you know we really can't trust any committer or maintainer. So it probably also maybe is bringing in some new security tools to scan all PRs looking for malicious PRs. So probably the the two convers you know there's it's not one thing it's probably a few different things. The other one would be probably creating more of a separation between maintainer and committer. That would allow more like quote unquote untrusted committers, but keeping that maintainers are highly trusted. >> Yeah, actually I can already say GitHub does not allow that [laughter] because you have the right role and and that's that's the role on on GitHub. I understand what you say. >> Um talking about this on the community call with like trying to figure out what GitHub actually lets you do. Uh yeah, >> Ethan Hendrick where if you would actually be able to separate them. >> Um Jessica said that you could in theory create a custom rule, but yeah, I I I think that that's that's something that we will have to look into whether like what what is actually possible and feasible. Um >> yeah. >> Well well I yeah there's there's but there are rule I I think you can set up rules. Let's say like if a committer approves a PR, you need to have like two approvals where maybe if a maintainer approves, it's one approval. I don't know, something like there's many different ways to to look at this problem. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. As as as said, so happy for me, I I like to have more security because I see the the benefits. I I think it must not become a bottleneck on time until we can onboard new people or on on general on boarding. And and as long as it's like that, I'm I'm more than than happy um for for 100%. Actually, funny for for the um for this specific case, but not that I want to move it forward, but Sophie, Jessica, um and me, those are the people on the call, have already met met Jesse in person on on the Hierro community day. Um if if we want to put something like that as a you know like kind kind of must um this is something that already has has happened and why I like to to really bring bring this topic up here because we know he's he's a real person and he works on on that that stuff even in university. But not I'm not trying to to push him, you know, just trying to to make sure that we already try to think about stuff like that. Okay. So [laughter] Jessica is power to prove it. Yeah, I like that. Good. Um so um I think we have a good decision here which is um Keith will present his thoughts on that Z topic next week. Maybe Sophie can even talk a little bit about um the qualification um of those words. Um and actually we are at the end of an hour which means we have two additional topics um that will be the top two topics um of next week. Um so as said that was a really packed um TSC but I believe a lot of good topics and thank you all for for staying here the the hour and discussing on the topics with us and uh see you next week. >> Thank you. See you next week. >> Thank you. Bye >> bye. Bye.