►
From YouTube: Baseline Protocol TSC August 27 2020
Description
Meeting of the Baseline Protocol Technical Steering Committee
A
A
No
worries
at
all.
I
think
we,
this
is
gonna.
This
is
a
special
meeting
of
the
tsc
it's
at
the
normal
time,
but
it
is
a
special
meeting
from
the
perspective
of
the
fact
that
we
have
some
good
things
to
review.
We
have
some
things
to
look
forward
to
and
we
have
some
decisions
to
make,
so
this
is
really
going
to
be
a
working
meeting
where
everybody
should
turn
on
their
their
mics
to
to
talk
and
to
have
input.
A
This
is
this
is
not
a
passive
meeting
with
reporting
from
a
variety
of
people.
This
one
is
really
going
to
be
a
discussion
with
the
tsc
members
participating
in
their
full
capacity.
So
I
I
put
up
the
agenda,
but
there's
really
only
there's
really
only
two
items
on
the
agenda
today.
One
is
a
light
retrospective
of
the
experience
we
had
getting
to
be
0.1
and
how
we
want
to
organize
going
forward
and
very
related
to
that.
A
And
anisse
thanks
for
for
being
a
leader
in
that
in
that
space,
and
we
will
working
hard
to
support
it.
That
doesn't
mean
that
there
can
only
be
one
leader
as
well.
So
you
know
anybody
else
that
wants
to
make
sure
that
their
voices
are
heard.
The
standards
team
is
where
it's
going
to
be
at
in
the
coming
months.
A
A
There
you
go
yeah.
The
upside
of
that
of
that
filter
is
that
you
can't
hear
anything
else,
but
my
voice,
but
the
downside
is
you
can't
hear
anything
else
so
with
that
kyle?
Would
you
like
to
to
give
a
quick
review
of
what
we
did
what's
out
there
make
sure
that
the
tsc
team
knows
precisely
what
we
have
in
the
in
in.
A
C
Sure
yeah,
so
it's
it's
under
under
core
and
the
repo
we've
created,
there's,
there's
a
handful
of
packages,
defining
interfaces,
mess
and
the
protocol
message,
format
and
privacy
package
interface
and
there's
an
empty
sort
of
a
stub
persistence
package
that
I
think
will
be
getting
a
lot
of
attention.
Soon.
Probably
it'll
probably
get
the
the
next
wave
of
attention,
especially
as
we
start
working
on
standards.
C
It's
it's
its
purpose
and
if
it's
not
clear
is
is,
is
to
inter
interact
with
systems
of
record,
and
you
know
in
a
you
know
similar
pattern
to
how
to
how
the
other
packages
are
laid
out.
So
it
was.
The
package
was
a
bootstrap,
but
it's
sort
of
stuff.
So
then
you
have
under
examples
bri
one.
You
have
a
base
example
and
that's
that's.
That's
essentially
an
implementation
of
all
of
the
interfaces
defined
in
the
api
package,
and
you
know
it's.
C
It
also
has
the
one
also
has
a
lid
directory
which
has
a
couple
of
the
erp
connectors
from
the
previous
demos
which
were
built
out
of
bands
but
helped
inform
this.
This
first
effort,
and
so
those
those
can
be
with
a
little
bit
of
additional
effort,
wired
wired
together
with
the
base
example
to
show
sort
of
a
pattern
for
how
reference
implementations
can
be
distributed
in
in
the
baseline
project.
Repo
is
that
clear,
john.
A
Questions
I'll
I'll
ask
one
kind
of
prompting
question:
maybe
we
can
get
some
more
out
of
that,
and
that
is
well,
it's
probably
worth
going
into
the
nature
of
the
bris.
So
during
the
release
process
towards
the
end
and
uncomfortably
twerked.
Yet
we
had
a
meeting
with
the
maintainers
and
the
maintainers
kind
of
worked
out
a
way
of
approaching
the
difference
between
the
core
packages
and
the
reference
implementation
in
such
a
way
and
jory.
I'm
looking
at
you
to
make
sure
that
we're
in
compliance
with
with
oasis
practices.
D
A
A
It
just
doesn't
actually
use
the
core
libraries
because
it
was
it
preceded
them.
So
all
future
reference
implementations.
They
can
be
quite
opinionated.
As
this
one
is
right.
This
one
uses
provide
and
nether
mind
and
gnats.
I
could
turn
around
and
make
one
with
a
bunch
of
different
components
with
a
different
way
of
doing
things.
As
long
as
it
adheres
to
the
core
libraries
or
contributes
back
to
core
library,
saying
hey
and
then
you
know
we
can
have
a
discussion
about.
You
know
changes
to
the
core
libraries
and
the
folks
in
bri.
A
One
might
argue
with
the
folks
in
bri
too,
about
different
changes
to
the
standard
right
and
that's
and
then
anisse
and
the
team
will
will
step
in
and
say
all
right.
Let's,
let's
have
that
argument,
let's
discuss
what
the
industry
standard
ought
to
be,
so
it
is
right
and
proper
that
there
is
an
opinionated
release
with
bri
one.
A
All
right
cool
so
with,
I
think,
that's
worth
understanding
with
real
clarity
at
the
tsc
level,
so
that
nobody
starts
to
wonder:
hey,
wait
a
minute.
What
is
is
baseline
now,
nats
and
nethermine?
No,
no!
It's
the
reference
implementation
and
I
think
that
again,
the
team
that
built
the
reference
implementation
deserve
a
lot
of
credit
for
the
way
they
abstracted
out
the
core
libraries.
D
A
D
I
mean,
from
my
perspective,
definitely
not
urgently.
I
mean
down
the
line
as
and
when
there
is
like
subsequent
implementations,
then
it
might
make
sense
to
move
some
of
the
you
know
say
the
smart
contracts,
for
instance,
that
you
know
out
of,
like
the
you
know,
the
into
a
separate
repo,
so
that
you
get
that
separation
of
concerns
for
different
languages,
but
definitely
not
immediate
concern.
I
think
it's
more
as
and
when
there
is
a
subsequent
implementation.
A
No
worries
sure
right,
so
I
yeah,
I
think
that's
that
makes
sense
connor.
So
what
other
discussion
would
we
like
to
have
about
this
there?
There
are
several
points
that
we
can
bring
up
I'll
I'll
start
a
couple
and
then
it
would
be
great
if
everybody
can
put
on
their
conversation
hats.
This
is
definitely
the
day
to
have
a
full-throated
conversation
about
what
we
did,
what
we're
doing,
how
we
should
alter
trajectory
going
forward.
A
A
We
did
have
to
scramble
right
at
the
end
right
down
to
about
an
hour
after
we
released
and
he
said
kyle
and
I
were
frantically
fixing
docs.
The
code
was
done
in
time
and
by
all
accounts
the
code.
Is
people
really
think
that
it's
high
quality
work
so
far
I
haven't
seen
any
and
I've
neither
seen
nobody
paying
attention,
nor
have
I
seen
lots
of
flame
throwing
at
it.
A
A
A
C
F
I
would
like
to
add
that
it
was
great
seeing
that,
as
indeed
core
was
being
developed,
the
documentation
on
github
was
being
either
updated
or
more
developed,
so
it
was
helping
even
pre-release
to
follow
up
the
work
and
there
is
a
lot
of
value
on
my
side.
I
found
a
lot
of
value
in
this,
so
that
was
great.
E
B
A
D
F
A
I
really
think
that
it's
gonna
inspire
a
lot
of
people
who
might
not
have
felt
the
courage
to
get
involved.
I
think
sometimes
people
need
a
little
a
little
a
little
help
there,
video
wise,
clearly
the
the
videos
I
I
want
to
do
this
every
time
any
project
I'm
doing
from
now
on,
we
just
booked
one
half
hour
could
have
been
15
minutes
every
day
for
two
or
three
weeks,
and
sometimes
for
kyle,
for
example,
wouldn't
be
able
to
make
it
or
somebody
couldn't
make
it.
A
We
would
just
drop
it,
but
it
was
a
you
know.
Every
day
we
had
this
little
bit
of
time
to
go
on
camera
and
discuss
the
code,
and
then
we
were
able
to
edit
that
together
again
provide
the
provide
family
was
able
to
pitch
in
at
the
last
moment
and
and
get
those
edited
properly
make
sure
that
there
were
no
embarrassing
gaffes
by
the
way.
If
there
are
any
things
that
we
missed
there,
that
should
be
come
out,
because
you
know
enterprises
will
be
watching
those
videos.
A
I
would
love
it
if
this
team
saw
it
first,
so
you
might
want
to
look
at
those
videos
and
call
us
urgently.
If
you
see
anything
that
was
not
right
in
them
or
if
they're
or
if
they're
confusing,
I
mean
one
thing,
I
think
we
can
improve
upon
kyle
there
is
that
each
one
should
probably
have
a
little
intro
and
outro,
but
I
think
you
know
it
starts
with
one
and
goes
through
six
six
little
vignettes.
D
Now
it's
all
about
you
get
on
the
landing
page
and
there's
a
video
there
to
watch,
and
just
you
know,
maybe
I
don't
know
if
the
full
kind
of
is
it
five
minutes
or
just
give
it
a
full
video
or
just
maybe
even
an
edited
down
one,
but
just
having
something
there,
that
someone
can
click
and
just
start
watching
straight
away.
I
think
that
would
be
you
know
very,
very
helpful.
A
That's
a
great
idea,
jory's
thinking,
oh
no,
more
work
on
the
website
by
the
way
kudos
to
jory,
for
she
said
she
does
what
she
says
and
she
does
what
she
does.
She
did
that
she
said
that
she
would
improve.
The
website
evolve
it
to
a
place
where
we
could
very
quickly
add
releases
and
new
news,
and
it
worked
just
right.
A
E
B
B
D
I
just
I'm
pitching
something,
that's
kind
of
related
to
what
eric's
saying
there,
and
this
is
just
you
know
having
you
know,
there's
there's
the
sample
projects
but
having
like
a
getting
started
so
that
when
people
you
know
you,
you
look
at
dogs
for
most
projects.
It's
like
you
know.
Once
you
go
from
the
website,
you
say:
okay,
I
want
to
have
a
go
with
this
and
there's
like
a
clear
way
of
how
to
actually
you
know,
run
the
code
and
go
with
it.
D
There's
a
lot
of
information
on
the
documentation,
but
I
think
it's
one
thing
that
is
missing
is
just
that
kind
of
first
entry
point,
because
I
always
think
about
it.
Like
a
you
know:
marketing
funnel
where
it's
like
you
get
drop
off
and
it's
like
the
harder
you
make
it
for
someone
to
get
started.
The
further
they've
got
to
dig
the
less
likely
they
are
to
sign
up
for
the
service
or
you
know,
try
out
the
products.
C
D
Because
two
angles:
there's
the
the
github
page,
because
I
know
like
the
sample
repos
there,
but
just
just
having
like
literally
even
if
it's
as
much
as
clone
claim
the
repo
then
run
this
and
run
this.
You
know,
but
then
at
least
it's
like
someone
can
run
some
code
and
get
that
satisfaction.
You
know.
B
Yeah,
that's
absolutely
right
and
I
think
that's
what
what
nick
is
saying
as
well
there
and
in
the
chat
is
we.
We
need
that
strong
pathway
both
from
github
and
from
the
website
to
to
just
draw
someone
immediately
who's
interested
in
developing
into
a
into
a
very
clean,
getting
started
pipeline
and
a
very
clean.
You
know
almost
you
know,
wizard
flow
right.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
right,
arrogant
and
connor.
I
think
that
kudos
again
to
the
current
iteration,
we
may
have
to
pick
this
up
a
bit,
but
we
picked
this
up.
I
don't
know
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
what
that
means.
It
just
came
out
of
my
head.
We
need
to
increase
the
the
the
awareness,
but
there
is
a,
and
this
should
be
the
standard
way
for
all
bris.
To
do
this.
A
C
D
A
A
A
If,
if
any,
if
folks
don't
know,
we
have
some
really
big
companies,
I
don't
think
I'm
jory.
I
don't
think
I'm
allowed
to
say
it
on
tape
here,
but
another
big
giant,
accounting,
slash,
consulting
firm,
has
sponsored
and
is
preparing
their
press
release
and
other
companies
of
are
are
doing
the
same
and
so
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
more
activity,
especially
now
that
it's,
we
have
a
good
abstract,
generalized
core
set
of
libraries
to
work
with
also
meeting
with
sap
and
oracle
had
a
meeting
with
oracle.
A
Yesterday
having
another
meeting
with
sap,
they
seem
to
be
very
friendly
to
this
work.
I
I
won't
make
any
claims
for
them
beyond
that,
but
they
seem
to
be
very
friendly
to
the
work.
In
fact,
there
was
an
article
out
just
the
other
day
saying
that
they
were
friendly
about
the
work,
so
as
the
industry
intensity
as
people's
jobs
and
as
the
as
people's
revenue
streams
become
dependent
upon
baselining,
the
intensity
will
go
up.
A
A
C
F
A
A
F
We
may
not
want
individual,
like
algo,
to
talk
to
that
person
and
another
person
approaches
that
person
in
the
name
of
the
baseline
team.
So
I
think
it
will
be
very
valuable
to
speed
up
the
specification
and
stand
out
to
have
a
formal
process
to
invite
those
people
as
guests
or
contributors
or
to
a
very
specific
working
session.
If
we
know
in
the
in
the
given
session,
we
will
only
focus
on
privacy
and
zika
is
now
okay.
We
know
that
those
people
really
really
want
to
try
to
get
them
to
have
their
feedback
and
opinions.
F
E
That's
our
that's
our
job
right
to
worry
about
that
sort
of
thing,
and
so
on
the
oasis
side,
we
have
a
team,
chet,
incense
carol
and
guyer
d
sher,
jane
harnad
myself,
who
can
go
approach
and
the
businesses
in
a
formal
way
to
explain
to
them
the
ip
policies
and
that
sort
of
thing.
Now
anybody
can
contribute
to
baseline
it's
an
open
source
project.
They
don't
have
to
do
anything,
not
to
be
anybody
you
can.
E
They
can
do
that,
but
when
they
start
to
get
involved
with
the
spec
component
and
if
they're
going
to
be
contributing
patentable
ideas
to
that
process,
we
need
to
secure
a
entity
or
an
individual
contributor
license
agreement
and
as
they
they
do
that.
So
this
is
just
an
opportunity
for
us
to
encourage
that
and
also
ensure
that
we
got
the
we
got
the
docs
that
we
need.
F
A
This
brings
up
one
of
the
items
on
my
little
list
here
that
I
was
hoping
to
come
up
would
come
up
in
the
in
this
call
and
it
has-
and
that
is
the
role
of
the
maintainers
team
as
we
go
into
standards
time
and
also
where
we
are
working
on
this.
So
currently
we
have
a
google
doc
that
we've
been
sort
of
using
as
a
staging
environment,
to
kind
of
get
things
set
up,
but
jory
correct
me.
E
D
E
Yes,
so
right
now,
if
individual
submits
a
pull
request
on
any
repository
in
our
organization,
there
is
a
bot
that
flags
them
for
cla
signature.
That's
the
icla
signature.
The
ecla
is
required
by
individuals
who
are
contributing
on
behalf
of
the
company.
We
ask
all
of
our
sponsoring
organizations
to
sign
that.
A
D
D
For
the
for
the
non
sort
of
github
contributors,
actually
as
this
kind
of
expands,
it
might
be
sensible
to
have
kind
of
an
alternative
flow,
even
if
like
a
website,
for
example,
and
it's
as
easy
as
embedding
a
docusign,
someone
could
just
kind
of
you
know,
download
a
link
on
their
phone
and
click,
a
digital
signal,
signature
and
then
they've.
I
think
you
may
end
up
collecting
more
signees
like
that.
Basically,.
E
A
E
E
There
are
some
assumptions
we
can
make
about
our
tsc
and
maintainers,
who
are
contributing
regularly,
many
of
whose
or
whom's
organization
who
said
a
word
are
have
already
signed,
the
ecla
that,
if
they're,
if
they
have
the
right
access,
you
know
that
they
have
signed
the
ecla
or
the
icla
as
appropriate,
but
yeah
for
for
most
contributions.
We're
probably
going
to
want
to
take
that
from
whatever
fork
that
they've
provided
that
they've
been
working
on.
A
Terrific
yeah
so-
and
I
think,
maybe
that
that
answers
an
old
question
that
we
were
doodling,
which
is
whether
or
not
somebody
should
get
right
access
without
being
a
maintainer,
and
the
answer
is
on
the
on
the
core
date
on
the
core
repo.
The
answer
sounds
like:
maybe
we
shouldn't
even
for
specs,
it
should
be
maintainers,
get
to
you,
you
can.
You
can
fork
and
pull,
but
you
can't
write
to
any
branch
without
without
without
being
a
maintainer.
Is.
A
Directly
to
any
branch,
okay,
so
or
or
to
be
a
tsc
member
you
have
to,
and
you
most
importantly
have
to
assign
the
icla.
So
I
think
that
that
informs
a
question.
Another
item
that
I
have
my
little
list
here,
which
is
whether
or
not
the
standards
team,
an
anise
and
others,
should
be
part
of
the
maintainer
team
or
whether
we
should
have
a
separate
org
and
I've
gotten
input,
mostly
to
the
the
former
that
that
we
should.
I
think,
sam,
for
example,
not
to
out
you,
but
you
did.
A
E
D
I
I
I'd
envisage
that,
as
you
know,
the
standard
kind
of
evolves
we'll
probably
find
that
there's
kind
of
separate
people
who
are
really
interested
in
working
on
the
standard
versus
people
who
are
writing
the
code,
because,
although
there
of
course
is
crossover
with
the
skill
sets,
we
do
tend
to
find
that
you
know
people
looking
at
the
standard,
they're
thinking
about
it
more
from
the
perspective
of
you
know.
Does
this
actually
make
sense
to
someone
reading
it?
Can
someone
go
off
and
implement
something
off
the
back
of
it?
D
Then,
of
course
someone
writing.
The
code
is
thinking.
Okay,
I'm
trying
to
you
know,
get
this
specific
thing
to
work,
or
I
think
you
know
the
the
code's
going
to
be
moving
ahead
so
to
speak,
whereas
I
think
the
standard's
going
to
be
kind
of
snapshotting
it
at
points
in
time,
and
so
I
I
think
the
mindset
of
the
people
who
are
kind
of
really
focused
on
each
of
those
will
be
slightly
different
and
I'd
envisage
a
more
natural
kind
of
separation
between
the
two.
A
That
is
a
good
point.
The
question
is:
can
we
do
that
and
manage
it?
I
should
like
to
see
a
lot
more
maintainers
in
our
maintainers
team.
The
fewer
maintainers,
the
more
risk
there
is.
There
are
some
bylaws
on
the
on
the
maintainers
about
how
many
people,
what
ratio
any
given
company
can
have
in
terms
of
number
of
people
in
the
maintainers
team,
and
a
couple
of
those
companies
are
bumping
up
against
that
limit
and
we
want
to
see
more
maintainers.
We
want
to
see
more
representation.
We
want
to
see
more
diverse
perspectives.
A
We
have
a
three
maintainer
rule
for
committing
any
item.
Let's
not
call
it
code,
but
any
item
to
the
repo
to
the
main
branch
we
can.
I
I
don't
think
it's
on
the
table
right
now.
I
haven't
heard
anybody
wishing
to
change
that
number,
so
I
I
will
not
bring
it
up,
but
if
we
had
10
code
oriented
maintainers
and
some
number
of
specs
oriented
maintainers,
the
specs
oriented
maintainers
can
be
approving
those
those
pulls
without.
A
I
don't
think
without
doing
any
any
violence
to
any
of
the
code
work
and
vice
versa.
I
I'm
not
gonna
lie.
I
think
that
from
my
perspective
and
I'm
just
one
person
yeah,
I
I
need
to
put
a
lot
of
caveats
in
here
because
I'm
the
chair,
so
I
don't
want
people
going
with
my
suggestion
just
because
I'm
the
chair,
but
I've
gotta,
I've
gotta,
bring
it
up.
I
think
I
would
like
to
I
would
prefer
my
preference
would
be
to
see
the
a
single
maintainers
group
for
a
variety
of
organizations.
A
A
E
E
A
E
F
A
A
I
was
a
drummer,
I
was
a
jazz
drummer
and
not
a
bad
one,
and
then
I
sold
it
by
a
motorcycle
to
go
to
california
that
was
like
in
1984.
anyway.
Moving
on.
So
the
the
there's,
a
minor
point
here
that
I
should
probably
mention,
but
I
don't
know
that
I
want
to
bring
it
up
more
than
just
just
to
get
people
thinking
about
it
and
that
is
tsc
ssc
and
the
standards
work.
A
A
So
I'm
not
sure
what
folks
are
thinking
about
that
you
just
I
I
wanted
to
kind
of
that.
That's
been
on
my
mind.
I
wanted
to
to
vet
it
with
you
guys
and
to
you
know.
I
think
that
it
would
be
nice
if
we
could
move
the
standards
conversation
into
one
of
the
two
bi-weekly
meetings
so
that
we're
not
adding
yet
another
meeting
except
for
for
really
specific
work.
Group
hey.
We
need
to
work
on
this
clause
and
we
need
to
argue
about
it
kind
of
things
which
we
can
do
on
an
ad-hoc
basis.
E
Thoughts
are
that
rules-wise.
You
can
do
that
it's
totally
above
board
and
I
think,
actually
there's
a
lot
of
sensibility
in
it.
It
seems
like
the
activities
that
are
being
undertaken
on
the
ssc
side,
which
have
been
highly
productive,
are
really
driving
a
lot
of
the
direction
of
the
project
and
and
the
tsc
does
seem
to
have
been
taking
more
of
that
kind
of
longer
term
sort
of
abstracted
view.
So
it
makes
sense.
A
A
I've
already
had
a
number
of
nominations
or
re-nominations,
and
I've
had
one
party
say
that
they
want
to
spend
more
time
on
a
sub-working
group,
but
not
on
the
tsc
itself,
so
that
they'll
be
dropping
out,
which
is
good,
because
we
have
more
people
that
are
going
to
want
to
be
on
the
dsc,
and
the
tsc,
as
you
know,
is
a
fixed
number
of
no
more
than
11.
it's
basically,
five,
seven
or
five,
seven,
nine
or
eleven,
I
think,
is
what
we
it
has
to
be
an
odd
number.
A
So
please,
if
you
haven't
already
nominated
people,
this
is
the
time
we
must
do
the
the
start,
the
elections
properly
no
later
than
two
weeks
ahead
of
the
last
day
of
september.
So
we
this
is
the
time
to
do
it.
We
could
begin
the
election
cycle
as
as
early
as
the
beginning
of
september.
I
think
we're
gonna
need
at
least
one
one
week
in
september
to
get
ourselves
you
know
set
up
and
for
people
to
sort
of
campaign
a
bit
about
who
you
know.
A
You
know
why
they
want
to
be
in
joy.
Is
there
any
best
practice
on
on
the
question
of
I
mean:
do
we
need
to
run
some
sessions
or
some
some
major
candidates,
kind
of
a
thing,
or
I'm
a
little
worried
about
about
low
participation?
But
I
think
people
tend
to
just
kind
of
go:
go
along
with
the
flow
and
we're
not
so
big,
yet
that
we
have
a
big
argument
about
who's
going
to
be
on
the
tsc.
Yet.
E
E
What
they
have
to
do,
that
kind
of
thing,
that's
really
great
a
lot
of
times
they
will
and
I
would
encourage
a
nominee
to
do
this,
which
is
to
say
you
know,
hey,
ask
me
anything,
can
let's
get
to
know
each
other
effectively
and
that's
that's
really
great,
not
typically
a
lot
of
procedure
or
process
around
you
know
a
meeting
or
like
a
formal
type
videos
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
that's
probably
too
much
and
yeah.
That's
that's!
Typically
what
you
see.
A
So
you
may
give
those
to
me
as
the
chair,
and
I
will
I
will
collect
them
into
the
candidate
list
without
anybody
knowing
who
was
the
nominator,
so
you
can
do
that
or
you
can
openly
put
it
on
on
a
response
to
the
issue
or
a
comment
in
the
issue
that
we'll
be
putting
up.
I
will
do
that
by
the
end
of
this
week
and
I'll
make
a
note
of
it.
So
everybody
sees
it.
A
E
The
other
pattern
you
can
take
is
an
explicit
opt-in
and
that
would
certainly
help
you
longer
term.
We've
got
a
great
group
here,
everybody's
really
present
and
everything.
But
what
can
happen
over
time?
Is
you
have
the
ghosts
folks
who
just
aren't
able
to
make
it
or
are
kind
of
just
you
know
they're
there
and
that,
because
it's
it's
always
this
assumed
opt-in.
They
continue
to
be
there.
Sometimes
what
you
want
is
the
explicit
you're
out.
Unless
you
explicitly
opt
in
and
it's
auto,
you
know
renewed.
A
E
The
other
suggestion
I
will
make
when
it
is
appropriate
is
that-
and
that
may
be
after
this
upcoming
election
it'd-
be
great
to
have
a
document
that
was
very
clear
that
you
can
point
to
people
when
they're
nominating
here
are
the
expectations
for
your
time?
What
we're
expecting
you
to
bring
you
know
and
to
the
table
kind
of
the
types
of
candidates
or
the
types
of
folks
that
we're
looking
for
and
the
skills.
So
it's
really
clear
who
would
be
a
great
fit
for
the
tsc.
A
Terrific
and
unfortunately,
we
have
that
in
the
docs
and
the
docs
are
quite
explicit
about
that,
and
I
think
that's
good
all
right.
So
that's
the
tsc
elections,
we've
discussed
the
standards,
work
and
we'll
we'll
table
the
matters
of
of
of
which
meetings
we
do
for
which,
until
the
next
meeting,
so
people
can
think
about
it,
and
with
that
I
think
we're
we're
good.
Last
thing
is
usually
it's
the
first
thing,
but
I'll
share
screen
and.