►
From YouTube: CHIPS Alliance TSC Meeting - 2021-05-26
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).
B
C
A
D
D
Because
when
I
wrote
the
email
that
you
can
take
care
of
inviting
hannah
to
the
next
dc
meeting,
I
of
course
didn't
assume
it
was
happening
like
in
two
days,
but
still
I
did
assume
that
someone
would
take
that
responsibility,
preferably
someone.
That's
not
me
so
brian,
if
you
could
add
henry
permanently
to
the
group
and
the
invite
and
I'm
trying
to
catch
hannah,
but
like
he's,
probably
asleep,
because
it's
8
a.m
for
him.
So.
B
D
E
Hello,
my
headset
appears
to
be
messed
up.
Let's
see
if
I
can
find
a
different.
E
A
F
E
All
right,
so
I
I
invited
henner
just
now
and
added
him
to
the
mailing
list
so
for
for
the
tsc
meetings,
I
think
everybody
everybody
who's
on
the
invite
should
be
able
to
manage
the
invite.
I
think
let
me
just
double
check
that,
though
I.
D
E
Yeah,
michael,
let
me
make
you
a
mod
on
the
group
here.
Rob
should
also
be
mine
as
well.
E
E
Michael,
do
you
know
how
to
moderate
people
and
and
add
them
and
remove
them
on
groups.io?
Do
you
have
to
do
that
for
any
other
projects.
F
E
D
Okay,
should
we
start
because
I
think
it's
things
are
getting
some
momentum
and
I
don't
think
we
have
time
to
lose.
We
can
let
you
click
through
things
brian.
While
we
talk.
E
Sounds
good
so,
let's
maybe
go
through
and
review
kind
of
what's
been,
what's
been
going
on
the
various
votes
that
have
been
taken
here
so
henry
or
michael,
do
you
want
to
go
through
the
most
recent
vote.
D
Yeah,
if
I
may
first
ask
do
we
have
meeting
notes
in
some
kind
of
a
google
doc
that
we
could
kind
of
collaboratively
edit.
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
thing
as
a
number
of
things
to
to
track
growth.
I
think
I'm
just
following
the
example
of
the
zephyr
tsc,
I'm
also
participating
in
where
they
have
some
robust
meeting
notes
and
it's
really
helpful.
D
Even
if
you
know
someone
doesn't
take
part
like
henna
today,
because
he
wasn't
invited
in
time
he
can
still
read
what
was
going
on
and
also
like
by
giving
access
to
multiple
people
that
can
edit
the
notes
like
we
can.
D
You
know
it's
not
all
hanging
on
on
your
brian
or
whoever
is
writing
it
down,
but
it
can
be
anyone,
and
especially
if
people
have
multiple
action
items
like
some
coming
from
some
members
and
some
kind
from
other
members,
then
those
those
members
can
also
kind
of
paste,
relevant
links
and
and
type
any
conclusions.
D
Usually
the
way
I've
seen
other
groups
structure,
it
is
like
only
a
few
people
have
like
edit
rights
and
any
other
people
who
have
comment
rights,
so
that's
like
they
can
suggest
edits
into
the
google
doc,
but
they
need
approval
to
to
merge
them
with
the
notes
themselves
to
avoid
any
kind
of
anyone
accidentally
editing
the
notes
and
changing
history.
Without
you
know,
approval.
E
Yeah
that
that
seems
pretty
reasonable
one
of
the
other
things
that's
worked
well
in
other
projects
is
once
the
meeting
notes
settle
a
bit
when
everybody's
reasonably
comfortable,
then
just
convert
them
to
markdown
and
commit
them
to
the
repo.
So
we
can
definitely
do
that
as
well.
D
E
Here
and
everybody
these
current
tsc
members
will
have
access
we'll
have
right
access
to
the
to
the
folder.
The
links
that
are
in
the
meeting
minutes
folder
anybody
with
the
link
who
can
access.
It
will
be
able
to
add
comments.
So
that's
open
to
the
world
at
large.
D
D
That's
right
and
I
would
advise
that
it's
a
rolling
dock,
so
it's
like
tc
meeting,
notes,
2021
and-
and
we
just
have
one
document-
we
don't
need
to
kind
of
circle
back
and
try
to
find
the
document
again
next
time
around,
but
more
like
it's
a
one
link
that
we
return
to.
D
D
E
E
Okay,
and
then
next
thing
I'll
do
here,
is
for
the
recording
I'll
share
this
screen
so
that
it's
see
exactly
what's
happening.
D
D
E
E
E
D
D
So
should
we
put
that
on
the
agenda
or
in
the
minutes.
E
You
know
what
how
about
we
do.
Let's
do
it
like
that,
we'll
just
edit
them
in
line
yeah.
D
That's
that's
fine,
okay,
so
vote
number
one
was
was
variable
and
we
got
two
out
of
two
votes
that
were
positive.
So
that
means
the
vote
passed.
I
guess
that's
correct
and
with
that
hannah
zeller
became
our
third
tsc.
D
Member
and
then
we
have
another
application
for
graduated,
I
don't.
I
don't
think
we
have
applications
for
for
sandbox
right
now.
Oh
we
do
sorry.
We
we,
I
think
we
actually
do.
Yeah,
there's
the
espresso
application
right,
yeah.
G
C
Additional
constraints
on
it,
it
looks
to
me
like
the
bsd
license,
only
covers
part
of
it
and
it's
the
old
bsd
license,
not
the
newer
one
and
yeah.
I
think
that's
about
it
and
the
the
person
who
wants
to
bring
it
into
the
chips
alliance
and
maintain
it
is
not
the
original
author.
A
C
Basically,
it's
a
it's
a
it's
like
an
abandoned
project
that
uc
berkeley
has
continued
to
host
okay
and
so
chisel
uses
it.
The
swerve
cores
from
western
digital
also
use
it.
So
it's
not
purely
a
chisel
ecosystem
thing,
so
yeah,
it's
just
not
really
clear
to
me.
Under
what
conditions
it
is
acceptable
to.
You
know,
create
a
fork
of
this
project
and
re-license
it,
and
so
I
think,
getting
some.
A
Yeah,
what
okay?
That's
that's
good
background,
michael
in
terms
of
you
know
the
list
that
you
know
I
put
together
for
legal.
Where
would
you
want
to
have
this
in
the
pipeline.
D
D
D
Okay,
because
you
know
this
is
like
a
a
less
complicated
situation
where
someone
created
a
project
and
wants
it
to
have
a
new
home
in
chip's
alliance
versus
this,
which
is
there
is
a
project,
but
we
don't
know
the
attitude
of
the
original
author
towards
it
going
into
chip's
alliance
right.
So
there
needs
to
be
some
due
diligence
and
research
around
this
yeah.
C
D
Call
us
it's
not
it's
not
the
worst
thing.
Of
course
it
works
would
be
this
not
maintained
and
like.
Please
do
not
use
it
and
we're
never
gonna,
donate
it
anywhere
or
something
yes,
but.
C
D
More
a
statement
of
we
have
no
time
to
do
anything
with
it,
which
is
fine
and
that's
what
open
source
is
about.
There's
other
people
who
can
take
over
and
and
continue
the
work
which
which
happened
so
in
general.
I
assume
we'll
be
able
to
resolve
this
positively,
but
it'll
probably
take
time
to
get
enough
confidence
in
this
project
to
to
onboard
it.
D
And
and
there's
there's
certainly
more
projects
than
that,
so
we
should
have
some
kind
of
a
list.
A
D
In
a
sense,
you
have
this
presentation
rob
so
you
can
add
it
just
add
it
at
the
at
the
very
end
right
like
okay,
yeah,
don't
push
it
on
top,
but
keep
track
of
it
by
having
it
in
the
slide
deck,
and
we
can
use
the
slide
deck.
As
the
you
know,
single
source
of
truth
for
this
particular
problem
right
because
for
projects.
G
D
Are
already
apache
licensed
and
have
no
problems
associated
with
them?
I
think
we
should
just
go
and
admit
them.
I
mean
we
can
keep
a
list,
but
realistically
we
should
just
open
pr's
for
each
and
every
one
of
them.
That's
all.
Instead
of
keeping
a
list.
D
Okay,
so
I
think
this
sandbox
application
is
kind
of
frozen.
I
gave
the
tsc
meeting
tag
to
it,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
should
have
another
tag
that
signifies
license
like
non-apache.
I
would
propose
that
we
have
a
license
like
this,
so
that
we
can
see
that
this
is
not
just
something
to
be
discussed
and
voted
through.
This
is
something
to
be.
You
know
resolved.
E
D
If
the
person
starts
asking
questions,
we'll
kind
of
just
explain
that
it's
unfortunately
on
our
list
of
things
to
get
through,
and
we
should
kind
of
slowly
start
opening
prs
for
you
know
any
other
things
which
are
fairly.
You
know
we're
fairly
certain
of
that
they
do
want
to
join
and-
and
we
should
put
them
in
the
sandbox
group
where
I
assume
this
is
exactly
where
we
want
them
to
be.
D
D
We
can,
for
example,
gen
five,
let's
take
gem
five,
it's
it's
a
project
that
wants
to
move
to
chips
and
it
has
the
wrong
license
and
we
want
to
get
through
this
process
of
admitting
it.
But
we
first
need
to
do
due
diligence,
so
the
correct
process,
I
assume,
would
be
to
admit
them
to
sandbox,
because
they've
expressed
the
will
to
join
and
that
kind
of
puts
them
one
leg
in
chips
alliance
already,
and
then
we
can
kind
of
simultaneously
and
also
we
can
just
keep
track
of
it
more
more
publicly
and
more
openly.
D
E
Yeah
yeah,
absolutely
michael,
and
that
perfectly
encapsulates
the
goal
of
the
sandbox
stage.
You
know
really.
The
goal
of
the
sandbox
stage
is
a
place
for
projects
to
indicate
hey
we're
interested
in
becoming
graduated
projects
of
the
chips
alliance,
but
we
still
have
some
things
to
get
in
order.
This
puts
it
on
our
radar.
It
allows
us
to
understand
that
there
are.
E
You
know,
projects
which
maybe
need
some
additional
time
and
attention,
and
it
also
gives
us
a
you
know
just
kind
of
a
clear
way
of
managing
what
is
still
outstanding
between
now
and
a
graduated
application.
So,
yes,
absolutely.
D
E
D
Is
one
do
we
have
other
ones
that,
as
we
test
is
another
one,
we
should
I'm
sure
this
one
will
go
through
it.
It's
just
gonna.
Take
time
rob
you
had
a
few
more
on
your
list.
We.
A
Sorry,
no,
no,
we
had
a
fassook
from
michigan.
D
Yeah,
sorry,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
we
shouldn't
just
admit,
open,
facelock
and
over
time
and
perhaps
sandbox
sandbox
fast
fast,
the
the
the
broader
framework
or
even
like
admit,
open
fa
sock
as
a
graduated
project
and
then
just
like
over
time,
merge
face
the
entirety
of
the
facelock
into
like
like
just
like
chisel
and
fertile
are
one
project.
I.
D
D
I
think
there's
also
the
align
framework
which
unfortunately
dropped
the
ball
on
which
we
have
to
fix.
E
A
That's
originally
from
university
of
michigan,
it's
curse.
Current
host
is
well.
I
don't
think.
That's
really
true,
I
would
say
uc
davis,
but
they
actually
have
their
that's.
Just
professor
lowe
power
is
at
davis.
G
A
D
And
then
magical
just
to
complete
this
list
is
psd3
clause
as
well.
It's
very
popular
license.
You
can
see
right
here
so
yeah
I
would
propose
creating
those
sandbox
applications
and
for
projects
that
we
need
to
admit
to
graduated
is
there's
a
few.
So
but
let's
go
well.
Let's
first
get
into
this
section,
I
assume
we
can
go
to
to
2.4
review
applications
were
graduated.
So,
yes,
there's
a
sherlock
uhdm
application.
D
I
have
a
question
brian.
We
have
to
wait
for
everyone
to
answer
the
the
vote,
or
do
we
have
to
wait
for
a
majority
and
then
okay.
The
vote
goes
through
because,
of
course
I
I
know
that
henry
will
vote
for
it.
But
then
again
I
can
ask
henry,
unless
henry
of
course
doesn't
want
those
products
on.
D
D
E
And
just
for
the
benefit
of
the
recording
here,
one
of
the
reasons
we
do
email
votes
for
things
like
this
is
so
that
we
have
a
written
record
of
the
votes.
So
thank
you
henry
for
doing
that.
No
problem.
E
And
then
also
for
the
benefit
of
the
recording
michael
identified
since
we
are,
each
new
project
adds
a
new
voting
member
on
the
tsc.
If
we
have
multiple
votes
that
are
batched
up,
we
basically
have
to
do
them
in
order
and
each
time
adding
a
new
person
to
the
vote
which
changes
the
quorum
requirement.
But
you
know
over
time.
Presumably
the
number
of
projects
which
we're
taking
in
at
the
same
time
will
slow
down.
D
D
Do
I
have
to
kind
of
summarize
the
vote
over
email,
or
is
it
enough
if
we
do
it
on
the
meeting
or
do
we.
E
D
D
D
D
D
Releases
are
created
with
every
comment
right,
but
I
looked
at
those
projects
and
of
course
it
doesn't.
It
was
just
a
copy-paste
error
but,
like
it
turned
out,
okay,
there
is
no
release
policy
right,
like
it's
just
called
being
developed
on
github
journal,
formal
releases.
So
I
proposed
some
wording
that
says:
basically
there
is
no
set
policy
right
now
and
the
policy
will
be
developed
together
with
chip's
alliance.
D
So
I
don't
see
it
as
a
problem.
That's
why
I
kind
of
I
allowed
the
application
in
but
like
of
course,
I
don't
think
it's
a
bad
idea
that
we
have
the
question
in
the
form,
because
of
course,
that
signifies
it's
something.
We
want
to
work
towards
actually
having
a
release
methodology
and
having
some
mechanics
in.
D
D
Okay,
just
just
racing
it
like,
because
it
was
one
of
the
points
that
there
was
a
problem
with
in
the
application
right
like
I,
I
I'm
helping
people
fill
in
those
applications
and
then
I
see
which
questions
actually
pose
the
biggest
problems
for
people,
and
I
think
it's
once
it's
it's
kind
of
procedural
ones
like
like.
If
you
only
have
to
confirm
that
you
want
to
do
something,
it's
like
people
to
confirm,
confirm,
confirmed,
but,
like
questions
like
like
this,
is
there
a
release
methodology?
D
Sometimes
there's?
The
answer
is
no,
and
I
don't
see
it
as
an
explicit
problem
per
se.
I
see
it
as
something
to
be
fixed
in
the
long
term
and
chips
allies
being
the
exact
place
that
can
help
with
this,
because
the
broader
the
broader
background
for
admitting
uhdm
and
sherlock
is
to
make
them
used
more
widely
among
all
the
other
chip
size
projects
such
as
swear
for
example,
or
other
system
verilog
based
projects.
D
We're
already
doing
this
a
little
bit
try
to
enable
uvm
support
in
open
source
tools,
so
that
would
potentially
also
kind
of
create
a
path
towards
adoption
and
risk.
Dv.
So,
like
interconnections
between
the
projects
are
something
you
want
to
encourage
and
that
will
naturally
breed
a
stronger
need
for
having
a
release
mechanism
because,
of
course,
with
adoption,
there
comes
problems
like
this.
D
D
That
makes
sense
awesome.
Okay.
So
now
we
have
two
projects.
Of
course
that's
a
small
subset
of
what
we
should
have,
so
I
wanted
to
start
going
through.
Applications
that
we
need
to
create
open
face
occurs
one,
but
there
is
also
swerve,
and
the
question
is
whether
that
should
be
one
or
multiple
projects.
D
A
A
D
Sorry
with
all
the
admissions
we'll
of
course
be
getting
new
members
and
having
to
onboard
them,
and
so
on
so
I
mean
it's
a
good
problem
to
have,
but
just
just
just
mentioning,
oh
by
the
way,
I
I
have
a
few
questions
regarding
the
specifically
the
tsc
repo.
I
think
it's
a
good
place
to
to
to
talk
about
this.
So
okay,
but
let's
perhaps
finish
this
list,
because
I'm
sure
that
it's
we're
not
far
away
there's
only
extend
that.
We
also
need
to
graduate
and
there's.
D
D
And
that
will,
of
course,
generate
like
a
number
of
new
tsc
members,
so
the
dynamics
will
change
quite
quite
a
lot
right.
We
already
have
four,
which
is
100
increase
over
the
original
two.
D
When
once
we
get
like
one,
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven
more,
it's
gonna
be
way
more
people
to
delegate
work
to,
I
mean
not
as
as
in
delegate
everything
to
one
poor
soul,
but
more
like
different
people
can
take
different
tasks
between
11
folks.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
fairly
simple
to
to
to
have
some
progress,
even
if
a
few
of
them
are
busy,
sometimes
and
so
on.
D
D
That's
good
to
hear
he's
a
cool
guy,
okey
doke,
so
yeah.
D
If
we
look
at
the
tsurepo
there's
a
lot
of
redundancy
and
I'd
like
to
get
rid
of
it,
because
if
we
need
to
be
so
formal
about
any
changes
to
that
repository,
this
redundancy
will
just
kill
us.
I
mean
because
you
add
something
here,
but
you
forget
to
add
it
here
and
then
you
need
to
do
another
pull
request
to
add
it
or
or
basically
the
alternative
is
that
the
repo
is
not
coherent,
which
is
also
bad.
D
E
D
D
All
right,
so,
basically,
the
the
thing
that
we
have
here
is:
if
you
scroll
down
a
little
bit
here,
you
can
see
there's
a
list
of
sandbox
projects.
I
would
strongly
advice
to
get
rid
of
them
because
that
list
is
also
in
the
sandbox
directory
and
basically
that
list
is
also
available
as
a
list
of
files
in
the
samples
directory.
So
practically
speaking,
we
have
three
places
that
list
one
and
the
same
thing,
and
people
obviously
forget
to
update
those
three
things.
At
the
same.
E
D
I
think
that's
an
excellent
idea.
Actually
you
could
you
could
kind
of
move
it
like
get
rid
of
chip
slice
projects
per
se.
Perhaps
like
move
working
groups
to
be
not
a
subsection
by
the
section,
because,
like
working
groups
as
a
subsection
of
chip,
science
project
doesn't
really
make
that
much
sense.
So
we
could
nominate
into
a
separate
section,
get
rid
of
the
the
chip
size
projects
in
its
entirety.
D
Like
in
the
place
where
the
chipset
project
is
right
now
and
add
into
this
table,
the
the
project
affiliation,
that's
a
great
idea
that
solves
the
and
we
will
will
not
have
a
sandbox
project
list,
but
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
so
important.
I
mean
again
otherwise
we'll
have
to
maintain
that
list.
D
D
Further
down
so
so,
and
also
oh
yeah
and
I'm
jesus
we
need
to,
we
need
to
accept
the
pr
first
that
adds
henner,
I
think,
and
actually
we
we
can
probably
into
that
pr.
We
could
add.
E
Michael
yeah
yeah,
I
mean
for
things
like
this.
This
is
basically
documentation
change
and
typically,
if
I'm
changing
documentation
I'll
just
put
in
the
actual
pr
itself,
you
know
this
is
a
trivial
pr,
I'll
merge
it
directly,
and
that
should
be
fine.
G
D
D
F
E
About
let
me
let
me
take
that
one
michael
I'll
put
a
new
break
documentation
fixes
out
into
their
own
special
category
and
say
for
documentation,
fixes
just
note
that
it's
documentation,
fix
and
merge
it
directly,
because
that
that
is
more
processed
than
would
be
needed.
For
that.
D
Yeah,
I
mean
any
kind
of
thing
that
allows
us
to
change
stuff
that
doesn't
like
yeah
only
documents,
the
reality.
It
doesn't
like
change
this
date
of
things
well,
and
I
I
consider
errata
fixes
an
editorial
changes.
This
right
meeting
minutes
could
be
that
we,
you
know,
we
we
have
a
procedure
about
adding
meeting
minutes.
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
that,
but
well
updates
to
team
lists
is
literally
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
right
now
and.
E
D
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
that
could
be
a
good
way
to
to
do
that,
but,
like
we
need
wording
around
this,
otherwise
it's
like
I've.
I've
mostly
been
trying
to
follow
that
procedure.
I
don't
think
I
have
followed
it
every
time
when
I
was
adding
anything
to
the
repository.
I
don't
think
that
matters
so
much
because
my
changes
have
been
documentation
changes.
I
haven't
fundamentally
kind
of
changed
any
reality
with
my
changes.
So
to
say
I
haven't
been
changing
the
charter
or
anything,
but
over
time
like
we
need
this.
D
D
Rephrase
this
so
that
we
can
proceed
faster
with
those
those
kind
of
changes
that
would
be
great.
It
will
really
really
help
and
then
the
tsc
repo
structure.
I
would
exactly
like
start
hacking
around
the
t,
the
repos,
which
would
allow
us
to
kind
of
just
not
have
to
repeat
ourselves,
because
it's
the
same
with
inside
the
project
directory
we
have
like
sandbox
directory
and
then
the
directory
itself
contains
a
file
per
project
plus
the
readme,
and
I
generally
think
it's
enough
and
obviously.
D
Over
time,
I
think
we
could
create
some
kind
of
automated
fetcher
that
would
parse
that
directory
take
all
those
files
extract,
the
formal
project
name,
the
license
the
like.
You
know
I
I
can
imagine
in
my
head
a
really
cool
automated
system
that
generates
a
nice
summary
of
those
projects
with
links
and
everything
right.
It's
it's
totally
possible,
but
it
is
work
right.
D
E
E
G
D
E
E
Actually,
you
know
what
this
would
technically
be
a
documentation
fix,
and
so
it's
something
that
should
go
through
the
fast
track
process.
Anyhow,.
D
E
Sounds
good,
let
me
just
fix.
I
need
to
fix
the
title
on
this
for
this
section.
D
Yeah
now
that's
a
really
helpful
change,
because
that
just
allows
us
to
proceed
more
quickly
with
stuff
that
we
just
notice
and-
and-
and
you
know
we
don't
need
to
ask
someone
for
permission
to
to
just
you
know-
fix
a
typo
or
something
yeah
right,
and
that
really
helps
with
keeping
this
repository
tidy,
which
which
I
think
will
be
fundamental,
because
we
can
then
tell
people
to
go
there
and
that
becomes
our
single
source.
It's
also
truth
that
we
can
fall
back
on
and
again
over
time.
I
think
we
can
build
a
really
nice.
D
You
know
continuous
integration
process
which
just
takes
the
information
in
those
directories
and
creates
a
list
of
projects
in
chip's
alliance,
but
doing
it
manually
feels
somewhat
redundant,
especially
at
this
early
stage,
where
we
just
don't
have
enough
manpower
to
and
to
be
doing,
that
editorial
work.
E
E
I
just
added
a
fast
track.
Oh,
go
ahead.
E
Was
going
to
say,
I
just
added
the
fast
track
label.
So
if
you
want
to
go
through
and
approve
that,
then
we'll
be
in
good
shape.
D
I
mean
you
don't
need
to,
but
that's
how
I've
been
expressing
approval
earlier.
C
G
No
sorry
too,
for
this
disturbing
I'm
joyoung,
and
then
I
just
submit
the
pr
of
dispersal
and
can
come
across
to
the
tsa
meeting
and
wondering
the
process
of
this
pr.
G
E
All
right,
henry
michael,
you
wanna.
D
D
For
your
information
cheryank,
we
just
admitted
a
project
and
that
kind
of
officially
raises
the
number
of
people
in
the
tc24
and
since
there's
only
two
of
us,
we
can't
take
a
vote,
but
in
general
I
don't
think
we
should
be
against.
Of
course,
in
terms
of
admitting
the
project
fully
into
graduation
that'll
be
a
lengthier
process,
because,
basically
there
seems
to
be
code,
that's
not
apache
licensed
there
and
that
kind
of
triggers
a
due
diligence
procedure.
D
You
know
as
long
as
we
we
have
reason
to
believe
that
the
only
current
maintainership
is
in
the
hands
of
of
people
that
are
anyway,
affiliated
with
and
involved
with,
the
chips
alliance
and
it's
a
project,
that's
needed
by
other
science
projects,
and
I
don't
think
we
should
oppose
putting
it
in
the
sandbox
as
an
expression
of
the
will
to
to
admit
it.
Once
we
resolve
the
licensing
discussions.
E
Yeah
and
just
for
for
some
context
as
well,
one
of
the
things
which
we
discussed
earlier
in
the
call
was
that
the
sandbox
stage
is
really
good
for
projects
like
this,
where
there
may
be
some
additional
questions
to
get
figured
out,
and
this
also,
you
know
put
it
puts
it
in
our
attention
so
that
we're
able
to
to
know
that
there's
some
interest
here
in
you
know
becoming
a
chips
alliance
project,
a
formal
chips
alliance
project.
E
E
Okay,
do
we
have
anything
else
to
discuss
for.
E
E
I'd
say
we
can
probably.
I
was.
D
Muted,
oh,
I
was
muted
yeah.
I
I
wish
we
could,
but
we
have
this
topic
at
the
very
end.
The
transferring
process
to
chip's
github
so
we'll
still
still
need
to
actually
take
those
projects
in
right,
and
I
think
the
best
way
to
do
that
would
be
to
to
ensure
that
the
core
maintainers
have
signed
it.
Cla
and
stuff,
like
that.
I'll
need
your
help.
D
Brian
to
to
make
sure
that
this
happens,
especially
elaine,
I
think
is,
is
someone
because
henner
is
part
of
google
and
we're
kind
of
talking
to
hillary
about
this
and
we'll
resolve
this,
but
with
with
elaine,
he's
not
affiliated
with
google
in
the
way
he's
working
with
us
right,
but
he
doesn't
have
this
backing
of
a
large
organization
that
you
know
understands
the
legal
stuff.
D
So
it
would
be
great
to
to
guide
him
through
the
process
so
that
he
could,
you
know,
get
the
cla
signed
and
and
transfer
the
the
repository.
I
think
he
could
also
transfer
the
poster
without
signing
the
cla,
but
then
he
would
have
a
nasty
surprise
of
not
being
able
to
commit
code
into
his
own
repositories,
which
of
course,
is
something
we
totally
want
to
avoid.
D
Otherwise,
yes,
I
think
we'll
will
not
be
able
to
prove
that
chips
alliance
is
making
things
better
for
everyone,
but
rather
that
it's
making
things
worse,
yeah,
so
just
just
to
mention
that
this
really
needs
to
also
happen
like,
even
though,
of
course,
it's
just
a
you
know,
technical
thing,
but
it's
still
a
to-do
list.
Okay,
yeah,
that's
all
and
we're
on
top
of
the
hour,
so
perfect
timing.