►
From YouTube: CHIPS Alliance TSC Meeting - 2021-02-24
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
A
I
guess,
let's
give
it
another
minute
to
see
if
anybody
else
is
going
to
join
us
here.
In
the
meantime,
I'm
going
to
make
some
edits
to
the
agenda.
A
A
A
A
C
A
Henry
we
can
probably
go
ahead
and
get
started
I'll
capture
the
mating
minutes
on
this
one.
Eventually,
when
we
get
larger,
somebody
from
the
tsc
would
do
this,
but
in
the
meantime,
for
this
one
I
can
take
care
of
it.
A
All
right,
so
I
don't
you
want
to
open
the
meeting
sure.
A
A
B
B
So
I
can
speak
to
how
far
how
far
it
got
it's
easy
to,
as
we
predicted
it's
very
easy
to
do
the
sandbox
application
part
and
then,
when
you
get
to
the
second
part,
you're
like
oh,
we
need
to
like
go
talk
to
other
people
or
the
other
contributors
and
that's
what
happened
with
the
chisel
one
as
well,
but
I
think
it's
so
I
guess
feed
one
piece
of
feedback
is,
it
does
seem
despite
us
intending
to
get
everybody
to
the
graduated
state.
B
B
I
think
calculating
the
scale
of
usage
is
a
little
bit
unclear.
Is
it
number
of
users?
Is
it
how
they're
using
it,
but
chisel
chisel
does
as
we'll
see,
chisel
does
a
better
job
of
tracking
users
and
contributors,
but
yeah.
I
think
the
sandbox
part
is
easy.
The
graduation
part
yeah
rocket
ship
is
still
just
missing
a
lot
of
those
things
and
we
need
to
have
a
working
group
meeting
to
address
them,
but
I
filled
out
the
the
sandbox
part
so.
A
Sounds
good
and
I
mean
I
think
that's
that's
part
of
the
idea
here
really
is
that
it's
the
point
of
the
sandbox
stage
is
to
give
you
time
and
and
space
to
be
able
to
figure
out
the
rest
of
those
answers.
So
that's
it's
good
that
it's
easy
to
get
into,
and
it
hopefully
we'll
make
it
easier
to
get
those
other
answers
for
the
graduation
application.
B
Yeah,
I
think
two
other
things
that
we
encountered
if
you
scroll
up
a
little
bit
to
like
the
direction-
maybe
it's
maybe
it's
not
visible
here,
but
the
if
we
can
get
to
a
view
where
you
can
see
what
the
original
directions
are,
which
I
forget
it.
Oh
yeah.
I
guess
I
guess
I
guess
I
I
guess
I
removed
them,
but
maybe
if
we
go
to
the
template.
E
All
right,
one
second
here.
B
Yep,
so
one
thing
that's
recommended
here
is
project
applying
for
sandbox
should
add
the
sandbox
application
label.
So
is
that
is
that
supposed
to
be
a
github
label?
That's
part
of
the
psc
repo,
it
is
yeah.
Did
we
because
I
I
I
don't
think
it's
there?
So
one
thing
is,
I
don't
think
it's
there.
I
think
there
are
only
the
generic
github
labels
at
the
moment.
B
A
So
we
need
to
add
those
labels
and
the
person
applying
can't
actually
apply
them.
So
a
tsc
member
should
put
that
on
there.
B
A
Yeah,
okay,
all
right
sounds
good,
so
maybe
what
we'd
add
up
here,
something
like
when
you're
ready
for
your
application
to
be
considered.
Ask
a
tsc
member
to
add
this
label.
B
A
So
that
people
have
time
to
draft
it,
but
also
it's
kind
of
clear
when
it's
time
to
put
it
on
the
agenda:
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
yeah,
all
right
cool-
I
mean
that's
basically
what
the
tsc
meeting
label
is
supposed
to
be
for,
but
it
would
be
good
okay,
you
know
what
let
me
take
it.
Let
me
take
a
stab
at
this.
I
think
I
can
probably
rework
this
pretty
pretty
easily.
B
It
it
also
raises
the
question
to
me
of
who
is
supposed
to
have
right
access
to
this
repo,
like
in
the
long
run.
Is
it
tsc
members?
Is
it
chips,
alliance
numbers?
B
A
Yeah,
so
what
I've
seen
in
other
projects,
it's
generally
easiest
for
things
like
this
to
have
anybody
who
is
a
regular
contributor
to
the
tsc
have
right
access
yeah.
So
I
mean
it's
it's
fine
for
it
to
be
broad.
I
think
we
might
have
some
branch
protection
rules
in
there.
That
say
you
need
you
need
to
put
things
through
pr's,
but
I'll
just
double
check
on
that
other
than
that
really,
there's
not
there's
not
any
harm
in
providing
right
access
on
this
particular
repo.
A
A
So
let
me
just
one
thing
you
do
here
would
be
to
add
some
instructions
on
the
front
page
on
how
to
request
write
access,
because
I
you
know
really
it's.
A
E
B
So
similarly,
they
got
as
far
as
sandbox.
So
I
think
the
the
interesting
thing
to
talk
about
here
is
they
do
have
multiple
repos,
but
at
the
present
time
the
governance
of
them
is
really
handled
by
the
same
set
of
people.
So
their
feeling
was
like
we
don't.
Basically
they
don't
feel
like
they
need
to
have
distinct
representation
at
the
tsc
level.
For
each
of
these
projects,
yep
so
yeah,
I
told
them,
it
was
fine
to
you
know
just
represent
themselves
as
the
working
group,
but
any
feedback
you
you
guys
have
about.
A
Yeah,
so
this
brings
up
an
interesting
governance
question
of
if
there
were
something
that
required
a
tsc
vote.
Is
this
one
vote
or
is.
B
A
So
basically,
then
we
would
treat
them
as
a
single
project
using
the
nomenclature
and
the
in
the
charter.
So
there'd
be
a
single
project
right.
B
B
E
A
Makes
sense-
and
it
fits
with
the
idea
of
let's
do
this
thing-
it's
the
most,
the
most
straightforward
and
the
easiest
to
understand.
So,
okay,
all
right.
So
I've
got
that
in
the
notes
we
could
say
called
chisel
project
henry.
Do
you
want
to
have
a
talk
with
him
about
just
pushing
a
patch
on
that.
B
That
yep,
and
so
they
have
a
you,
know
somewhat
more
comprehensive
social
media
presence,
etc,
but
basically,
when
when
he
got
to
the
graduation
part,
he
was
like
okay,
we
need
to
have
a
like
working
group
meeting
to
go
through
all
these
items,
so
that
should
happen
sometime
in
this
next
month.
A
Okay
sounds
good:
they
need
somebody
to
come
into
the
working
group
and
talk
about
this.
I
mean
I
assume
that
you're
pretty
actively
involved
in
that,
but
certainly
feel
free
to
pull
any
of
us
in.
C
A
Right,
okay,
great,
so
then
I
think
at
this
point
really,
I
mean,
there's
not
really
probably
anything
stopping
us
from
accepting
either
one
of
these
sandbox
applications
right
really,
the
questions
are
all
the
graduated
status,
yeah,
yeah,
okay,.
A
A
I
think
another
thing
would
be
to
add.
Certainly
a
jack
to
the
to
the
list
of
people
with
right
access
to
the
repo
make
a
little
easier
to
keep
this
thing
up
to
date,
and
then
really
it's
just
a
matter
of
following
up
and
getting
them
the
help
they
need
and
the
guidance
they
need
in
order
to
get
through
the
graduation
application.
B
B
A
Yeah
that
that
makes
sense-
and
when
it
comes
to
those
particular
discussions,
please
definitely
do
involve
me.
I
have
done
this
for
a
number
of
other
projects,
and
sometimes
sometimes
this
particular
process
sounds
more
intimidating
than
it
actually
is.
So
I
I
can
certainly
help
with
that
as
well
and
with
the
mechanics
of
it.
B
Okay,
maybe
I
will
then
try
to
get
you
and
jack
synced
up
with
regards
to
either
questions
he
collects
from
them
or
like
when
they're
next,
when
they
actually
are
planning
to
do
the
vote
or
that
kind
of
that
kind
of
thing.
I
think
he's
I
think,
he's
on
the
the
chips
alliance
slack
already,
but
I
can
introduce
you
guys,
sounds
good.
A
Okay,
so
then
that
just
basically
brings
us,
I
think,
to
the
end
of
this
process,
for
both,
so
we
put
in
the
requirements
become,
the
sandbox
project
are
complete.
The
project
application
template,
which
we've
got
here
and
the
pr
has
been
opened
project
joined
the
tsc
meeting
to
present
the
proposal
we
don't
have
jack,
but
we
do
have
you
henry
presenting
both
of
these,
so
I
think
that's.
We
could
probably
consider
that
good
enough,
and
that
really
just
leaves
approving
this.
A
The
application
is
a
sandbox
project
by
majority
vote
are
both
of
you
comfortable
with
taking
the
vote
right
now.
I
am.
D
E
A
Sounds
good,
so,
let's
start
with
the
first
vote,
then
let
me
get
back
to
the
pr.
Let's
start
with
rocket
chip.
A
Okay,
so
let's
just
go
around
and
we'll
just
do
a
majority
vote
here.
So
michael,
are
you
comfortable
with
this?
Do
you
vote
to
accept
them
as
a
sandbox
project?
All
right
great!
Thank
you,
henry
hi
all
right!
Thank
you!
So
they're
now
a
sandbox
project
and
henry
you
can
go
ahead
and
land
that
one
cool
for
chisel,
michael
comfortable,
adding,
is
a
sandbox
project,
hi
all
right,
michael,
oh
sorry,
henry
hi,
great!
Let's
go
ahead
and
land
that
one
as
well.
A
All
right
well,
that
was
pretty
easy
and
I
think
that's
everything
that
I
was
aware
of
on
the
agenda
for
this
particular
meeting.
I
assume
we
can
kind
of.
D
Rename
the
file
and
everything
just
just
as
we
go
right,
because
we
were
talking
about
calling
it
chisel
project,
not
just
a
working
group,
yeah.
A
Yeah
sounds
good,
yeah
and
michael.
I
think
that
would
fit
we
have
under
here
that
the
tsc
is
able
to
keep
the
keep
the
repos
tidy
and
orderly.
So
I
would
consider
this
under
tidy
and
orderly.
D
B
Yeah
they
do,
they
do
have
some
other
repos
that
are
not
particularly
active
that
haven't
even
that
they
like
haven't.
Even
basically,
he
did
the
three
most
active
ones,
which
are
also
the
ones
that
they
transferred
over
to
the
chips
alliance
organization.
Already,
I
think,
they're
sort
of
a
long
tale
of
smaller,
like
ancillary
projects,
that
I
think
the
repos
will
get
moved
over
at
some
point.
But
I
think
I
don't
think
they'll
apply
for
separate
project
status
or
if
they
did,
it
would
be
like
going
straight
to
archive.
D
It's
all
a
matter
of
common
sense.
I
think,
like
you
know,
as
as
long
as
everyone
agrees
and
and
then
then
the
community
might
grow
and
then
like
it
might
just
make
sense
to
to
separate
things
out
differently,
but
it's
a
problem
we
can
handle
later.
It's
just
the
naming
I
care
about
because
like
if
it's
just
called
chisel
project,
like
everyone
will
understand
it,
it
means
that
it's
the
technical
project
of
chisel
and
and
the
fact
that
there's
some
ancillary
projects,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
the
same.
D
In
many
cases
like
you
know,
swerve,
for
example,
right
like
it's,
not
really
one
repo,
it's
a
bunch
of
different
things
and
potentially
useful
tools
like
I.
I
doubt
that
all
of
those
tools
will
suddenly
try
to
join
as
a
separate
project,
probably
won't
happen
or
even
if
they
try,
we
probably
will
say
it
doesn't
make
sense.
You're
part
of
the
swerve
project,
yeah.
A
Yeah
somewhere
in
here-
and
I
don't
remember
where
it
is
michael,
but
we
do
have
some
language
which
says
that
it
is
the
tsc's
decision.
So
if
the,
if
we're
going
to
lump
projects
together
into
a
single
or
lump
repositories
together
into
a
single
project,
that's
something
where
the
tsc
would
make
that
decision.
Based
on
what
keeps
things
neat
and
tidy
yep.
A
Okay,
the
only
actually,
I
thought
of
one
of
the
things.
So
since
the
last
meeting
I
put
together
a
couple
of
things
here,
which
should
hopefully
make
it
easier
to
get
people
on
boarded
with
the
cla
for
code
only
projects
and
for
spec
and
code
projects.
A
A
The
single
biggest
piece
of
advice
I
can
give
here
is
the
same
one
that
I
gave
to
the
governing
board,
which
is
let's
try
and
get
as
many
of
these
documents
signed
in
advance
as
possible,
particularly
for
the
active
contributors,
so
that
when
we
turn
on
the
easy
cla
tool,
productive
work
isn't
getting
blocked.
So
it's
it's
pretty
straightforward.
Really
all
we
have
to
do
is
open
up
our
well.
The
the
person
needs
to
do
is
open
up
a
pr
against
these
two
repos
easy
cla,
specs
and
code
and
easy
cla
code.
A
Only
that
will
trigger
the
check
to
see
whether
they've
signed
the
cla
and,
if
they
haven't,
then
it
will
provide
them
a
link
to
do
that,
and
there's
also,
I
put
in
some
instructions
here
as
well,
to
make
it
a
little
easier
to
figure
out
what
you
need
to
do
so
henry.
A
I
think
this
might
be
one
thing:
we'd
want
to
get
back
to
both
of
them
with
just
you
know,
encourage
people
to
just
go
open
up
trivial
pr's
against
that
repo
that'll
make
sure
that
their
core
contributors
are
covered
so
that
there's
no
disruption
whenever
we
do
actually
migrate
them
in
and
turn
this
thing
up.
That
makes
sense.
A
E
C
Hey
brian
yeah
yeah,
it's
rob
so!
No,
that's
that's
good!
I'm
just
curious
is
like
berkeley.
Have
they
signed
the
cla
or
is
that
still
kind
of
hanging
out
there
that
one
is
still
hanging
out
there
so
we'll
have
to.
B
B
I
do
think
that
they
will
want
berkeley
to
have
done
the
organizational
sign-on
before
they
activate
it.
That
makes
sense
yeah
for
rocket
ship.
I
think
the
there's
less
active
berkeley
contribution
right
now,
so
I
and
the
the
the
main
developer
does
like
really
wants
the
cla
to
go
active.
So
I
think
that
can
happen
even
before
berkeley
has
done
more.
C
Yeah
my
question
really.
My
question
was
related
to
the
bag
effort
of
professor
nichola
too,
and
to
see
where
that
was-
and
I
know
that
one
of
the
challenges
he
has
of
course,
as
you
probably
know,
is
some
of
the
dependency
on
both
cadence
and
some
foundry
data
too
yeah.
That's
probably
going
to
be
a
long
process.
D
Okay,
sorry
yeah
right.
A
D
Find
the
right
window
to
make
myself
so
basically
yeah,
there's
there's,
I
think,
a
bunch
of
things
we
want
to
on
board
that
will
have
one
problem
or
another,
and
bag
is
one
of
them,
but
we're
working
on
on
solutions.
So
to
say,
one
of
the
things
that
we
were
kind
of
discussing
with
rob
here
is
like,
with
projects
that
we
know
are
gonna
join.
D
They
just
haven't
yet
just
get
them
to
to
to
do
the
chips
common
thing
commons
thing
for
a
while,
just
so
that
kind
of
we
know
they're
in
our
orbit
so
to
say,
and
they
know
that
too,
and
we're
kind
of
trying
to
get
people
in
and
one
other
thing
that
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
discuss,
is
also
our
ability
to
like
set
up
working
groups.
D
That
kind
of
anticipate
communities
that
could
potentially
you
know,
are
congregate
around
chip's
alliance
and
and
we've
been
talking
to
silicon
austral,
labs
and
infineon
about
this,
where
it
would
go
a
long
way
for
them.
If
we
had
some
kind
of,
you
know
understanding
that
we
are
willing
and
happy
to
start
a
working
group
for
analog
design
within
chips,
even
though
bag's
not
in
yet
because
of
various
you
know,
hurdles
we'll
have
to
overcome.
D
D
So
like
expressing
our
interest
in
that
area,
which
I
think
we
have
like
it
is
a
very,
very
challenging
and
interesting
and
and
useful.
You
know
part
of
the
entire
chip
development
flow
to
to
automate.
You
know
those
those
analog
bits
into
generators
that
can
be
shared
and
reused.
I
think
it
fits
extremely
well
into
the
mission
of
chips,
and
we
shouldn't
just
be
about
digital.
We
never
nothing
ever
says
anywhere
that
we're
about
you
know
just
digital
design,
so
having
a
working
group
would
be
a
good
thing
to
do.
C
I'm
sorry
yeah,
I'm
just
going
to
to
echo
your
statement,
sir
michael,
so
I
think
my
analog
certainly
is
a
key
component
of
any
chip
designers.
I
think,
as
we
all
know,
and
historically
it
has
been
the
long
pole
in
terms
of
developing
any
given
particular
chip
so
relative
to
a
formation
of
an
analog
work
group.
I
think
there's
enough
interested
parties,
both
in
terms
of
industry
and
also
university
of
berkeley,
certainly
being
at
the
forefront
of
that.
But
you
know
I
know,
as
michael
knows,
that
you
know.
C
D
B
D
B
D
I
mean
especially
that
we
have
like
six
companies,
let's
say
interested
in
in
that
field.
That
could
be
working
together
as
part
of
this.
So
it's
not
like,
like.
I,
wouldn't
necessarily
want
to
create,
like
purely
anticipatory
groups
for
stuff
that
isn't
happening,
but
this
is
actually
things
that
are
like
happening
and
and
just.
B
Fan
of
stuff
being
like
descriptive,
rather
than
prescriptive,
so
like
if
you
have
a
group
of
people
that
want
to
meet
regularly
and
are
using
chips,
alliance,
stuff
or
planning
to
have
the
stuff
they
produce
be
made
available
through
chips
alliance.
That
is,
I
think,
descriptively
a
chips,
alliance
working
group
and
should
be
labeled
as
such.
I
think
like.
B
A
A
A
You
know
which
we
can
obviously
do
to
help
support
the
community
provide
them
with
you
know,
zoom
account
or
access
to
the
zoom
account
provide
them
with
access
to
be
able
to
live
stream.
Their
meetings
onto
the
chips
alliance,
youtube
channel,
provide
them
with
mailing
lists,
provide
them
with.
You
know
all
these
things
like
this,
which
we
can
really
easily
do,
but
we
probably
ought
to
write
them
out
somewhere
so
that
people
know
they
can
come
ask
what
this
is
true
for
both
projects
and
for
working
groups.
A
I
mean
that
is
certainly
very
much
within
the
mission
here,
so
I
think
we
probably
ought
to
add
something
I
would
say
on
the
front
page.
You
know
get
it
fairly
high
up
of
the
things
which
we
can
provide.
We
do
say
that
we
offer
a
number
of
tools,
but
we
don't
say
how
to
ask
for
them
yeah.
I
think
that
brian
would
be
able
to
like
try
to
fix
that.
I
can
fix
that.
That
is
easily
fixable.
A
A
hero-
well,
I
don't
know
about
that
anyway,
that's
right,
so,
okay,
so
yeah!
So,
let's,
let's
maybe
start
with
that.
One
and
say
here
are
the
things
we
which
we
can
offer:
here's
how
you
request
them.
If
you
want
to
set
up
a
working
group,
here's
how
you
do
it
that
I
think
it
gives
us
the
tools
to
do
what
you're
asking
for
here,
michael,
which
I
think
is
all
around
a
really
good
idea.
A
D
D
At
this
point
or
not,
doesn't
really
like
make
matter,
because
we
are
using
a
lot
of
tools
that
are
not
within
the
chips
alliance
and
like
they're,
still
useful
tools
to
do
the
stuff
that
we
need.
The
the
overarching
goal
is
not
to
like,
like
pat
a
few
projects
on
the
back
is
to
do
open
source
design
of
different
kinds
for
for
asics,
which
analog
is
a
big
part
of.
D
So
as
long
as
the
working
group
is
about,
you
know,
open
source,
analog
design,
we're
super
happy
to
host
that
conversation,
I'm
not
sure
like
who
would
be
like
if
you
create
like
a
formal
process,
I'm
not
sure
if
anyone
is
in
a
position
to
like
apply
quote
unquote
because
they
don't
have
like
a
formal
forum.
That's
exactly
why
they
might
need
a
working
group.
So
it's
like.
D
Because
we'd
be,
I
don't
know
giving
them
our
zoom
account
or
something
I
don't
even
think
they
require
this
right,
like
I'm,
not
sure
that
that's
the
most
important
thing
for
them.
I
think
the
most
important
thing
for
them
would
be
for
chip
science
to
admit
that
it
cares
about
animal
design
before
it
actually
like
admits
the
first
analog
design
project
internship
slides,
because
we
can't
admit
that
project
because
of
different
kinds
of
hurdles
that
it's
facing
to
to
actually
join
shouldn't.
D
Stop
us
from
saying:
hey
chips:
alliance
within
chip,
science
scope
is
also
analog
design,
so
we're
creating
a
working
group,
because
we
know
there's
interest
in
the
community
to
do
so,
and
then
you
know
we
can
just
connect
those
people
up
and
I'm
sure
they'll
they'll
start
using
that
infrastructure
like
I
wouldn't
want
to
make
it
into
a
formal
procedure
that
they
have
to
like
sign
a
letter
with
blood.
D
You
know,
or
you
need
at
least
like
five
people
to
or
something
because
it
might
turn
out
that
this
actually
discourages
them
from
from
doing
that,
because
it
seems
fishy
like
we
haven't
done
anything
yet
and
we're
kind
of
telling
them
to
do
something.
D
So
I'd
actually
say
the
tsc
seeing
interest
in
the
community
and
having
like
tangible
proof
of
that
interest,
which
we
do
like
I
mean
rob,
was
in
those
meetings.
I
was
in
those
meetings
and
like
we.
We,
if
you
want
to
like
join
an
email
chain
where
we
can
discuss
this.
That's
we
can
do
that
too,
and
then,
like.
I
think
it
should
be
like
the
tsc
can
decide
to
set
up
a
new
working
group
to
cover
an
area
that
hasn't
been.
You
know
covered
before.
I
think
that's
probably
the
process
hey.
C
C
D
Accidentally
run
into
the
problem
of
what
I
was
projecting
didn't
happen,
and
now
we
have
a
bunch
of
pr-
that's
just
empty
words
right:
okay
yeah.
I
think
it
will
happen
like.
I
have
no
reason
to
assume
that
those
people
were
joking
and
they
don't
want
us
to
like
literally
infineon
and
silicon
austria
kind
of
told
us
we're
gonna
chips.
Alliance,
join
ship's
alliance.
D
If
you
start
a
group
like
that,
that's
basically
what
it
boils
down
to
right,
so
correct,
gating
that
we
might
be
excluding
them
from
chips
alliance,
it's
a
chicken
and
I
guess
us
and
everything.
So
if
we
go
and
like,
if
we
have
a
procedure
as
the
tsc
to
say
hey,
it
seems
like
this
topic
is
of
interest,
and
people
are
flocking
to
us
and
asking.
Why
is
chip's
life
not
doing
this?
D
We
have
the
power
and
I
think
it
should
be
the
dsc's
power
to
like
set
up
a
new
working
group
and
proactively
like
act
to
congregate.
People
into
that
working
group
potentially,
of
course
draw
projects
in,
like
you,
suggested,
rob
there's
those
university
of
texas
projects,
for
example,
which
of
course
are
not
on
apache
license
we're
not
going
to
get
them
into
chips
in
five
minutes.
C
D
Like
we
can
at
least
start
this
procedure,
we'll
we'll
have
a
legitimate
reason
to
do
that
right,
because
we'll
have
a
working
group
we'll
have
people
joining
to
participate
in
the
working
group,
we'll
probably
have
meetings.
I
assume
these
guys
will
be
very
happy
to
set
up
a
monthly
meeting,
but
I
can't
you
know
like
tell
them
what
to
do
right
right,
yeah.
D
D
Rogue
way
like
zonomy,
sometimes
puts
like
a
new
working
group
that
we'd
want
to
start
in
the
future
on
those
diagrams
right
that
we
have
for
chips,
alliance
right
right
and
what
he
means
is
that
he
wants
chips
alliance
to
be
doing
that
thing,
but
like
it's
not
doing
it
yet,
because
you
know
there
isn't
perhaps
enough
momentum
or
projects
that
I've
joined
and
so
on
and
intuitively.
I
think,
he's
getting
that
thing
right.
He
wants
to
seed
a
specific
topic
and
you
can't
see
that
topic
without
actually
being
a
little
bit
proactive.
D
But
here
we
have
this
situation
where
the
conversation
is
already
happening,
that
the
demand
is
there
the
interest
there.
We
have
potential
members
so
like
if
we
could
go
as
the
tsc
and
say:
okay,
there's
a
new
working
group
that
we're
setting
up.
We
can
call
it.
You
know
working
group
information
in
space
formation
or
some
sort
of
denoting
that
is
like,
perhaps
not
fully
established
yet,
but
it's
kind
of
being
built.
D
Then
I
think
we
could
go
with
that
to
those
people
and
tell
them
look,
that's
that's
the
gesture
you're
waiting
for
please
join.
You
can
join
that
group.
You
can
be
the
people
that
help
us
like
establish
that
forum
that
conversation
within
chip's
lines.
C
A
Way
that
we're
configured
right
now
is
that
the
definition
of
a
work
group
is
that
it's
something
which
contains
at
least
one
graduated
project,
and
that
was
just
so
the
history
here
is
the
work
groups
were
set
up
originally
with
the
idea
that
this
is
just
logical
buckets
of
projects.
So
I'm
not
sure
whether
we'd
want
to
use
the
same
language
I've.
A
I
recognize
you've
been
saying
working
group
versus
work
group,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
want
to
use
the
same
language
for
this
or
if
we
might
want
to
say
these
are
initiatives
or
something
something
which
means
the
same
thing
but
uses
a
different
word
just
so.
C
Work
work,
good,
a
work,
so
a
work
group
really
is
not
a
collection
of
individuals
or
companies
or
participants
who
are
interested
in
a
given
topic
area.
So
you're
saying
that
effectively,
something
has
to
have
been
accomplished
already
for
the
work
group
to
come
into
existence.
Is
that
what
you're
saying.
A
Together
so
they
had
some
sense
of
identity
within
chips
alliance.
Whether
this
is
you
know,
hosting
large
group
meetings
so
that
there
are
fewer
meetings
scattered
across
the
calendar
or
you
know
originally.
The
idea
was
each
work
group
would
have
one
vote
on
matters
that
tsc
had
to
vote
on,
which,
since
scrubbed
that
for
various
reasons,
but
that
that
was
the
original
idea
here
behind
the
work
groups.
That
said
this
is
not
you
know.
This
is
not
a
particularly
firm
thing
that
has
to
always
stay
this
way.
A
If
we
would
prefer
to
use
a
different
term
or
you
know,
scrap
the
idea
of
work
groups
altogether,
that's
also
an
option.
So
really,
I
think
I
think
the
main
question
here
really
is
just
what's
the
least
confusing
long.
F
C
D
I'm
joking,
but
like
it's,
it's
more
like,
I
think,
that's
at
one
point:
zavon
was
proposing
hey,
let's,
let's
have
a
machine
learning
accelerator
work
group
right
and
there
is
zero
projects
in
chips
alliance
that
are
kind
of
specifically
machine
learning
accelerators
at
this
point,
which
which
for
me
doesn't
mean
that
we
shouldn't
have
this
group.
If
enough
people
want
to
work
on
this,
like
there
might
be
projects
that
we
actually
actively
go
out
and
say
hey.
That
project
needs
to
be
created
by
people
in
chips
alliance.
D
It
doesn't
exist
yet,
but
like
it's
so
important
that
we
should,
you
know,
actively,
go
and
try
to
create
this
code
to
to
to
make
this
happen,
and
I'm
not
sure
if,
like
we
want
to
gate
being
a
working
group
on
on
on
having
projects,
it's
a
fairly
unusual.
So
I'm
not
saying
we're
going
to
set
up
10
working
groups
of
zero
projects,
it's
more
like
because
we
could
call
them
like
special
interest
group
or
something
I'm
not
totally
against
that
idea.
D
It's
just
that.
For
me,
the
work
groups
have
always
been
like
a
topical
area
and
at
the
same
time,
a
bag
for
projects
because,
like
one,
doesn't
exclude
the
other
right,
but
since
they
don't
have
any
voting
rights,
that's
the
whole
point
like
we
have
eliminated
this
problem
of
where
groups
actually
giving
anyone
any
power
other
than
perhaps
having
a
zoom
account
right
like
that's
like.
I
don't
consider
that
a
problem.
D
If
we
told
people
you
can't
have
a
zoom
account
before
you
have
one
project,
that's
okay
for
me,
but,
like
I,
wouldn't
probably
introduce
another
entity
type
because
it
just
you
know,
make
things
confusing.
A
Easy
enough
change
the
definition
on
this
one,
so
I
agree:
let's
keep
it
simpler.
B
I'd
say
like
active
is
like
regularly
has
meetings
and
then
like
there's
some
level.
I
don't
know
what
the
there's
some
level
above
that
that's
contains
at
least
one
graduated
project
yeah
funny
enough,
like
we
have
no
active
work
group
yeah
technically.
At
the
moment
we
have
zero
active
work
groups
despite
having
a
bunch
of
groups
that
are
having
meetings
at
the
moment.
So
I
feel
like
that's
sort
of
the
simplest
way
to
slice
it,
and
I
agree
with
the
overall
point
that
since
they're
they
don't
have
voting
power.
A
Yeah
sounds
good,
so
maybe
we
just
say
activist
contains
at
least
one
graduated
project
or
is
actively
meeting
yeah.
D
D
Awesome
so
we'll
just
do
pull
requests
in
this
area.
Try
to
finalize
the
wording-
and
I
like
that
idea.
I
forgot
that
we
have
word
groups
levels
because
yeah,
adding
a
level
as
henry
said
is
probably
a
nice
idea,
and
then
I
I
assume
that
the
analog
one
would
be
on
this
first
level
and
then,
like
you,
know
very
quickly,
I
assume
someone
would
put
a
project
into
gypsy
alliance
that
would
be
concerned
a
violent
design
and
then
we
could
or
like
they
would
start
meeting
and
by
definition,
they'd
become
an
active
group.
D
A
Yeah
so,
let's
maybe
also
add
something
in
there
that
just
tsc
votes
majority
vote
of
the
dlc
to
establish
a
new
working
group,
yeah
and
the
reason
I'm
thinking
this
is
just
it's
not
not
to
create
process,
but
it's
just
eventually.
Access
to
things
like
zoom
accounts
can
become
scarce
resources.
D
A
Right
so
cool,
do
you
want
to
add
that?
Can
I
put
you
on
the
action
for
that
one
definitely
make
that
pr
cool.
D
Let's
sorry
I'll
probably
do
it
tomorrow,
but
yep.
A
Okay
related
topic,
so
right
now
I
think
the
idea
of
taking
rocket
ship
and
chisel
through
the
the
project
graduation
process
here
was
really
you
know
on
one
hand,
it's
we
need
to
go
through
and
get
all
the
projects
through
this
process
formally,
but
also
the
idea
was
that
it
would
be
a
reasonably
hopefully
straightforward
process
for
them
and
we
could
uncover
some
of
these
questions
and
issues
like
we
found
earlier.
Do
we
want
to
do
the
same
for
this
idea
of
chip's
alliance
commons?
A
It
sounds
like
from
what
you're
saying
here,
michael
that
that
there
are
a
couple
of
projects
where
it
would
make
sense
to
at
least
go
through
the
process
of
indicating
that
we'd
like
them
to
be
in
the
commons.
As
I
remember
from
our
formation
discussions
here,
we
said
it's
something
which
chips
aligns
the
sides.
You
know
we
would
call
something
to
be
or
define
something
to
be
within
our
commons.
A
D
We
should
try
to
figure
it
out
by
the
next
meaning
I
mean
it's.
I
think
it
should
be
a
two-way
street
in
the
sense
that
you
know
if
we
just
like,
we
should
try
to
convince
those
projects
not
to
shy
away
from
that
term.
Otherwise,
it'll
feel
like
we're.
You
know
appropriating
things
which,
which
is
not
the
you
know
the
intention
right.
The
intention
is
just
to
signify
an
already
existing
collaboration.
D
So
to
say,
that's
just
not
con
consummated,
so
it's
like
it's,
it's
not
yet
able
to
be
formalized
for
some
reason
like
with
bag
right,
it's
more
like
if
bag
agrees.
If
we
agree-
and
I
agree-
we
don't
have
a
process
for
it
yet,
but
we
can
try
to
figure
one
out.
We
should
be
able
to
talk
about
this
like
this
project.
Is
you
know
in
chips,
alliance,
commons
and
we're
happily
collaborating?
A
Yeah,
that's,
I
think
it's
big
part
of
it
here
really
is
just
for
the
first
first
few
times
through.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
something
that
is
sustainable
and
that
we're
capturing
all
the
different
aspects
of
information
that
we
need
here.
You
know,
in
this
case
we're
just
basically
saying
tsc
can
maintain
a
list
of
strategic
open
source
projects
or
include
them
in
the
relevant
discussions.
A
So
I
I
think
you
know,
let's,
let's
go
through
one
or
two
here,
proposing
some
lists
of
relevant
projects
and
see
how
that
works.
A
A
You
know
this
is
not
these
projects
are
not
part
of
the
chips
alliance.
They
are
related
to
the
chips
alliance.
They
are
cooperative
and
and
there's
a
sense
that
you
know
that
they're
occupying
a
similar
space
and
are
important
to
each
other,
but
we'll
want
to
make
sure
that
we
communicate
that
clearly,
so
that
other
people
don't
come
away
with
the
wrong
impression
that
you
know.
For
example,
a
commons
project
is
the
same
as
a
graduated
project,
or
even
a
sandbox
project
for
that
matter.
A
D
We're
doing
for
your
projects
now
and
word
group
stuff
and
like
comments,
is
something
we
should
be
like
thinking
about,
but,
like
I
wouldn't
be
pushing
for
like
making
this
our
priority
number
one.
D
A
Right
but
but
at
the
same
time
I
mean
you
raise
a
good
point,
it's
important
for
us
to
have
casual
language.
They
can
help
other
people
understand
what
this
is.
If
they're
looking
at
it
at
a
glance,
so
we
don't
send
out
the
wrong
impressions.
C
Yeah,
I'm
just
try,
I'm
just
saying
that,
just
because
trying
to
make
it
in
a
a
friendly
fashion
that
would
welcome
different
groups
without
necessarily
having
going
through
any
formal
processes,
so
to
speak
at
least
initially
yep.
D
A
Okay,
I
don't
have
anything
else
to
add
to
the
agenda
unless
anybody
else
says
anything.
No,
that
was
good.
Thank
you.