Everybody forced here rip in 2023 bowman sterling baseball hobby 12 box case number three This is a random team style break those results on your screen are available to see anytime at latent sports cards calm The results quick link is the bottom once you're on the home page of the website. There's a link in chat as well Let's go ahead and get started There's 24 to go on a prism collegiate draft basketball choice 10 box number two Which is not too long from now All right y'all and other than that it is the Sunday fun day 30 box mixer and a gold standard immaculate and Mosaic mixer as well for football. So let's get started here Something I put all about a start to good times right here good times Probably a little bit of space left for personal if anybody wants a personal tonight. They're gonna start pretty late Just a little bit of space. I haven't pulled a super out of this yet. So I want to pull super Maybe it's a train or something Got ruchman, there's a gold to 50 rookie Spencer steer for the Reds nice start for sincey The better rookies in the National League this year first auto of the break goes to the Rockies young kill Fernandez You go Rockies that's Anton Marrowed your Jones He's just base actually sterling silver auto to 100 is Alex Ramirez for the Mets nice hit Mets This will go out to Nelson v. Nelson Helly De La Cruz base Mike D in the place to be what up Base auto Dodgers rain donkone Dodgers there you go Richard a Raiders had victory cigars. They beat the Giants. Why they have victory cigars I Guess so they won. Let's celebrate. Yes, so sterling silver Jackson choreo to 100 Brewer's nice card Nice choreo with an auto here for the Dodgers again Salon Munoz Back-to-back Dodgers out as you go Richard again. What is going on? What is that about? What is all this base about sterling tech gold the 50 James Wood Padres not Padres? He was a Padre this is a nationals card obviously though Walgreens and Then an auto Kevin Parada for the Mets Two Mets and two Dodgers so far. They do they do like there's some times where that definitely happens very annoying Yeah, you should let's do it if I got to work, and I can't be doing the fun stuff Nobody can yeah, they're saying they think Jones for his ACL pretty terrible Yeah, tough loss for Dallas Eagles are good though. They're good Also, though it seems like Goddard's gonna be out a bit though Eagles Not unscathed Speckle to 99 Mikey Romero Boston with an auto for the A's Henry Bolt Henry Bolt for the A's Mallory there. All right base auto Yankee Spencer Jones Luke S with the Yankees Steer Meyer and a Jordan DS Next guy's turn Speakers cost more than the car. Oh, yeah, sounds just nothing cause more in the car Got a few showed a 75 Ricky Nelson Velasquez Cubs and base auto angels Zack Neto That's Anton with the angels Prism draft choice is the next break with spots available tonight everybody. Let's get that filled on up 24 to go base auto for the Blue Jays is Manuel Beltre Good stuff for the Jays here. He's got the Jays Benjamin L to 49 to 199 excuse me rookie refractor drew waters for Kansas City and another base auto Here's gonna be Glada figurero for the Rangers. That's John M with the Rangers. It's a common narrow base Still crazy that happens Well, I watched the replay they like show to the couple times you have to go try to find out They don't show it anymore, but like it was Weird dude like he just It was odd mini diamond 150 rookie hunter Brown for the Stroze and Base auto Kim Collier for the Reds Reds haven't pre-salt break so far. That's Gregory M Lawler to Mark Johnson Game time Sterling silver rookie Jordan Walker to 100 Cardinals. That's a nice one Yeah, that did play good. That did play good Stoic silver Cardinals Jordan Walker to 100 and an auto is Gavin Cross for Kansas City That's Nelson V with Kansas City Refractor auto to 150 Rockies young keel Fernandez young keel Fernandez going out to Good Rockies again and so there you go and so on Jackson holiday. Oh Boy, here comes Rod calling it rigged. She's got a lot of Joe mixing points tonight Big dad be great. That'd be great. No matter what no matter what the outcome of the game is Orange rookie autograph to 75 Corbin Carroll Diamondbacks Matt D with the Diamondbacks There we go gorgeous card. I mean eagle the Cowboys game. I got you So smoky there, let's go Joe mixing let's go Joe mixing Kind of mix in a water Our fracture auto braves. I'm yours to var as the 150 Braves The Braves at Chris W with the Braves on the Tavares the 150 it's common arrow Go more flag. I don't even know again. I don't even know a game. We're talking about Rod. I Watched no games today. I see a handful of plays every Sunday. That's what I see Pretty much rely on y'all that give me all the all the news Outside of the Sunday night game pretty much the mixing bag out there. Who's this guy taking his points? Mini diamond auto to 99 or speckle. Excuse me in a 99. How many bolt a's auto nice hit again for Mallory? accent choreo to 199 rookie Gabriella Moreno going out to the Diamondbacks in a wave auto to 125 Lazaro Montez Seattle Nice card Seattle. This is going to Edward s There's make sure to like the stream Just a handful of breaks not even handful just three breaks up a spot tonight Base auto for the Tigers Jace young Jace for the Tigers That's Kyle with the Tigers Kyle P right a mini diamond rookie to 150 Josh young for the Rangers and an auto for the Mets again, Alex Ramirez Mets is Nelson v. Orban Carol base get base auto Braves on B. Ors Tavares Raises Chris W. Again, another Tavares auto. Oh, yes, Kate Who Sean's rooting for? Cowboys are a more than two touchdown favored over the Giants next week already. Oh my god Yeah, the Raiders could do it then good Lord. I And the Cowboys are gonna tear him up though Rara Nolan Jones base auto ends in Polino. We have two autos in this one. We do Polino Red Sox Red Sox goes to Kyle P and a black lava auto to 10 of Alex Ramirez on the opulence auto Mets Great hit for Nelson v in the Mets six of ten Alex Ramirez That's gorgeous We may see a mini box short of auto because we had two in that one now That might be a possibility here a fuchsia rookie grow shans the 75 Marlins and a base auto Mikey Romero Red Sox Kyle P with the Red Sox Everybody get involved to Gunner Henderson rookie Eric Brown jr. Base auto from Milwaukee Rovers Chris W Mini diameter get a 250 or sorry to 150 Garrett Mitchell for the Brewers and a base auto for the Ashos is Drew Gilbert Ashos is Scott F Who's Smith to 199 Joshua Bayez Cardinals and Base auto for the Giants Reggie Crawford Giants gonna be Gregorium Lady La Cruz base first drive double see how bills adjust. Yeah, I was No, really hiccups on that on that drive once on the homeless had bro. He escaped out through a first down Very easy first, but it was first drive See if Buffalo could answer and then See if the bills can adjust on defense goodness Hope not I hope not too Gunner base or speckle took 99 is yasir Mercedes twins and orange auto on biorre stavares again for the Braves is 75 Chris W with the Braves Two to go in Sunday fun day everybody only two to go. Oh Urban Smiths, you know, two it is I was definitely this past offseason strive That's why I couldn't think of it Except for God he was there to 199 rookie Leverpiguelo pirates and a base auto for the Blue Jays Tucker Toman Benjamin L with the Blue Jays Carnazo at Chipotle Or if you're in Florida, you could go to just about any other Florida you could just go to almost most of the restaurants and they'll have pretty good turning us on it Strolling tech to 99 show hey, Ohtani angels and Speckle auto to 99 Reggie Crawford Giants It's packed there Gregory M with the Giants and the angels Anton gets the Ohtani It's the only Ohtani in the in the set as a sterling tech Yeah, Mike saw that who what are the other gold-gold winners? I didn't I didn't see any of that get announced It's one 99 rookie refractor Oscar Gonzalez guardians and a base auto for the Mets again jet Williams Mets is Nelson V. I imagine Nelson will get a few more Mets autos here. It's usually how it goes I'm getting all my Christmas presents base auto Michael Arroyo for Seattle Edward S with Seattle They're like you wrap it yeah I'll get my nephews something my nieces and they're like teenagers now. It's like Yeah But the nephews are young they're like three and six now.  It's really jagged so he steps on it at night. You kick it into that Oh Man so good wave auto the 125 Simon Juan with the Mets Nelson V with the Mets Just keep hitting man. All right. Here we go. Bill's got the ball now. Oh, it's all that's one of gold. Oh, that's pretty that's pretty good Good week for him Speckled the 99 drew Jones Diamondbacks. I should drew and auto the 150 rookie Alec Burleson Cardinals Cardinals is Jeffery M. I think the only Red Sox that was I don't think any Red Sox nominated, right? Couldn't have been dude the defense was terrible for the Red Sox is here. There's no way that'd be impossible. I Was thinking Silver Sugger. I think it was Devers and Costas got nominated for Silver Suggers at least Bassado Guardians chase the lotter. That's miles H with the Guardians Bengals best in the AFC maybe I think they might be Bassado for the Cardinals Joshua Baez Jeffrey M again with the Cardinals Let's check out the gold gloves later. I just got the notification like oh gold glove winners Bassado twins Yassar Mercedes Twins is Thomas J box is here It's more big cards here. We do have some nice stuff. It's been an okay case Guys two breaks off a spot Sunday. Funday is now sold out the rest of the spots in that choice Joseph L dude Joseph L Are we sold out for the night? For only force. Good Lord. Thank you, dude Joseph L. Thank you again, man.  All that's left Is that eight bucks wall mixer gold standard immaculate mosaic That's it. There is a little bit of space for personals if you would like a personal tonight everybody With the mix just sold out. We will have time for sure now that we're pretty much gonna sell out Yeah, so now that we're for sure gonna sell that is awesome guys. So get your personal orders in Let's go. Let's go Here you should here shake and bake good route. Good route Rockin with Joseph L. Good Joseph L rock with us. Yeah, for sure appreciate you brother bassado will be fun us Mets Mets dare you go Nelson V and I cut this I did cut this these boxes are also flimsy. So First and too hard they just start crunching up. Oh, they're in the goal line. What happened? What do we miss? What do we miss five or six for 82 yards? We miss something like it. We miss something here I'm telling you can't blink in these games Mason our base auto for the rays to week quarterbacks, man Rays is Martin Z Yeah, like a Mac Jones has the ball. You can't blink dude. Oh my god Oh That's a flag. What happened? So what exactly?  That'll be a nice. So number The 25 is Brady House Nationals Miles H of the Nationals nice Brady and they sterling silver auto to 100 Gavin Cross for Kansas City Royals is Nelson V. Well, that's definitely a taunt That's not a touchdown then right because he wasn't in the end zone Or is it after like is it on sportsman like and then it counts or what happens here? I guess they're just gonna say like yeah, you were gonna walk in any way. I guess I Would I would take it off the board. Yeah and back them up like 50 yards Take that down rushman there speckled a 99 rookie DL Hall for the Orioles Yeah, it is on sportsman like I guess it counts.  Oh, huh supper Mars. Yeah, I definitely ejected Josh Allen if I was the ref Like he's how would you be like an ump?  Let's go Unicom in arrow base auto for the rays. There you go Martin Z Next time Greg comes up here. We're going to Applebee's getting Doloritas Blair and some Creed. Yeah, that's what we're doing. I'll buy a round of Doloritas Me time into 150 his colos for the white socks Go Chris W with the white socks in an auto Nelson Rada angels going to Anton H Nelson Rada angels base auto Colts Pats next Sunday morning from Frankfurt Sterling silver to 100 rookie Jonathan Aranda for the rays And base auto Samuels of Allah for the Padres He goes San Diego Nathan F That should be our holiday outing for late sports cars Applebee's That'd be hilarious Opulence auto Mets Kevin Perotta number to 99 Nelson v with the Mets cleaning up Nelson Teams are hitting They have call brands. I don't know Greg. That's I've I went to Applebee's. I'm not even kidding one time in my entire life I've been to Applebee's no wait twice. I got a I got a beer one time with like some friends We went to Albus because they were like eating when I met up with them So I got a beer but the first time was in middle school with my parents And we were on like a road trip But like that was it The one time I had it the food was not good. I remember that and I was in middle school I remember not being good many diamond to 150 drew Jones diamond backs and wave auto to 125 edgard caro for the angels Go again Anton with the angels Meet my wife there. Do you meet your right there? Where do you meet your wife at Applebee's? No No, I met her. The one wife you did have I met while I was managing a restaurant in the last season I met her I did not meet my wife at Applebee's Greg This guy talking about mix in a water Greg Greg He's just waking up from the bender back at it again Guess who's back Yeah, man they used to be good, bro I was doing so to 100 jet Williams for the Mets a lot of those chain restaurants used to be good We used to go there a lot back in the day when my kids were young used to go there a lot It was good 10 beers inch drive. Goodness gracious Auto Lazaro Montez Mariners, didn't you just get home from the shop like An hour and a half ago That's my dog Montez Mariners auto Mariners going out too. I can't read it's Edward with the Mariners Edward S Edward I didn't see you Mini diamond rookie masatake Yoshida to 150 Boston like that Yoshida and base auto Jason choreo guardians That's a good one for miles H in the guardians Yeah, I don't think I ever I think I've been to Ben Higgins one more the last time Ben Higgins was like, oh like when are they They're all done, right? I don't think I've ever even like remember seeing one of my life I've seen him like movies and shows and stuff Base auto Cole young for Seattle another hit for Seattle. It's Edward S One of the place my one of my roommates in college used to like going to TGI Friday So been there quite a bit Every chain restaurant has gone way downhill Because they're getting closer to faster than they are to like actually cooking food anymore They're also not bringing as many people in as they used to Gonna rookie because they cheap it up and then they raise price thinking it's gonna like Yeah, no one wants to eat that trash rookie mini diamond 150 DL hall Orioles There you go Orioles And auto Daniel Montecino for the Padres Yes, companies like that were like the CEO is making like 40 million a year and all this executive making so much money The problem with chili is I used to work for them back in the day of management Nathan F With the Padres they went to a conveyor belt system instead of a char grill and It's like it's like a pizza And it's just I can't do it anymore.   Yeah stuff like that, but That's it.   They're pretty good though Never been there Corbin Carroll rookie for the d-backs to 199 refractor Jason Dominguez Yankees There you go Yanks and auto is a la las idas tigers Uh, Detroit Tigers is Kyle P in the break. There you go Kyle another hit for you Hayden Harris church. Yeah, I've been at that one a few times I've never been at church got solid food though Hamburger Marys freshman rookie for Baltimore auto Jose de Paula for the Dodgers Normally from a church to you Smashed for sure. Hey Dodgers on the other Paula Hitting that planet pizza or something Oh boy planet pizza. I've definitely had some bubbly stomachs after eating that before Torched uh roofs of the mouths. Yeah, you give it to you piping hot You wait 12 minutes go into earth and it's just like lava.  Yeah hairs are singed power through it though Silver to 100 Jackson maryl Padres And redemption Adley ruchman rookie auto gold refractor Baltimore Heck yeah, it's the first Adley I've seen I'm guessing he's redemption in this then all the way Uh, congrats to Baltimore Baltimore Baltimore who's got Baltimore? Really cannot read to me Edward s congrats Edward remember to 50 right there Um Crawford I can't remember remarks. I can't remember Hamburger Marys probably has the best food now on churches. There's not many options there I don't even I haven't been there in a minute though It's not good stuff at a church or any more the Harry buffalo is like, okay Like they're reliable didn't um The wall burger place shut down go a lot of the 50 Jonathan Mejia for the Cardinals There we go Cardinals Cardinals Jeffrey M with them and one more. I believe so. I think that was during uh I like quarantines and all that they shut down He's never eaten there like it like wall burgers is good, but they have like prime real estate I don't know if you can make it like that All burgers is alright. It's good burgers Not super cheap though, so that's that when I went there one time Hey, man, but when you see where it's at in the middle of downtown, it's like, oh, it's not the place for it. No Yeah, ain't no new bar is opening downtown. It's too expensive and it's not worth it A lot of people go downtown for it anymore. Like it's just Downtown Orlando, dude. I've been down there in a minute besides a game. It's $199 zack netto for the angels That rubber meat and a Jackson maryl auto for the Padres here Nathan F with the Padres go to Hardee's if you're gonna go fishing any bait We have the meats that's Arby's whatever if you should have 75 rookie is three Ruiz for the eights And speckle auto will he fun us Mets to 99? I should know who has the Mets and I would call him out Nelson v Hardee's is burgers Arby's is like the roast beef sandwiches and stuff Either way, I'm good. Oh, did your martes just drop a touchdown? You couldn't bring it in Hit him right in the hands too Mix and touchdown. Let's get a mix and touchdown. Let's go Corbin K. Rookie sterling silver auto zack netto angels angels about a few hits here Anton H with the angels Gold to 50 rookie max mire marlins And a rose gold auto is daniel montecino to 15.  There is a very noticeable roller line down the middle of this card You go Padres again. We're gonna get a box and wrapper out for you Probably need to send the full thing too Okay to 199 is Munoz for the Dodgers and a base auto for the blue jays gabriel martinez Blue jays on the back going out to benjamin l Another pretty fun case there All right, all numbered cards first Samuel Munoz zack netto jayson domingas oscar gonzalez Lee over Piguero Joshua Bayez Garrett Mitchell dl. Hall Oscar collos drew jones Masataki Yoshida is equal tovar josh young hunter brown jordan walker nith jonathan aranda Jet williams jackson merrill jackson choreo drew jones dl. Hall yasser marcedes Shohei otani sterling tech Mikey Romero estuary ruiz jordan grochens nelson falazquez spencer steer max meyer james wood and brady house autos of gabriel martinez jackson merrill jose de pala Abel bastitas jason choreo dion jorge daniel montecino col young jason choreo lazaro montez parada out of 99 Samuel zavala nelson irata junior caminero mason hour willy faunas yasser marcedes josh obayez chase the louder michael arroyo jet williams tucker toman reggie crawford drew gilbert eric brown jr. Mikey romero and ensign palino What's up sin victor saying what up? Pulling a new pokemon monsters recently Ambiore stavares alexa merez jayce young Gavin cross cam collier glader figuereo manuel beltré zack neto spencer jones henry bolt kevin parada samuel muñoz Rain don cone yankeel finandez ambiore stava certain numbered cards now Ambiore stavares yankeel finandez alec brilson edger caro simon juan Lazaro montez zack neto gavin cross alexa merez willy faunas reggie crawford henry bolt Ambiore stavares jonathan mejia and daniel montecino You're glad the buck's lost Gold redemption is going to be adley rutchman for baltimore number 250 on this one Oh, I see what you're getting at led our crews to 150 and to 75 for the reds Corbin carol to 75 a dime a baxter fiyoto And number to 10 on the black lava opulence is alexa merez for the mets. Thank you all very much for moving on now to some basketball


Cool. All right, Dan, we got a video to shoot. Can we shoot this? Yeah, here we go. All right, all right. All right, are we rolling? We're rolling. Are we rolling? All right. Welcome everyone to today's video. This might not be the most interesting video you've ever watched, but it is one of the most important ones. If you are a Kindle publisher, it's also one of the most requested videos because it's something we've never talked about before. It is. It is something very important and it is to make sure that you check your keywords for trademarks before you publish them because publishing trademarked keywords is actually the number one way to get your account terminated. It is the weakest route to getting your account terminated. To termination nation. So that is why this video is extremely important for anyone. If you consider yourself a Kindle publisher at all or plan on it, you have to watch this video. You have to go through this process before you publish a keyword just to make sure you're allowed to make books about it. So let's dive into the computer and show you how to do trademark searches on your books. Before we do that. Before we do that. Let's go back to Stevie a little bit. Hi big boy. How are you? Oh, okay. Well, you know, it's here. Now let's transition into the computer. Wait, can we do one of these, Dan? Oh yeah. Oh, it's like this transition out. I had a home run. You ready? All right, we are now sitting at the computer and before we jump into it, let's first define what is a trademark. So we asked Google right here. Google says a trademark is a symbol word or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product. I'm already very scared because they use the word legally. I don't want any legal issues. So that's why you don't want infringed on trademarks. You get into legal trouble. Here's what the big problem is, right? It's companies that have spent a lot of time and money building a brand of their own.  And that's money they should be making themselves. So they obviously don't like that. I'd be super pissed if someone came in and took my brand and started making money off of it. Which you actually are allowed to because our name is not trademarked. Yes, it's literally in the process right now. But yeah, these companies have bought the trademark. They paid money to make sure no one else makes money off of the brand that I built, okay? And there are lots of examples of this of people doing this within publishing. So now let's show you exactly how to check.  This is an official government website that you're gonna do all your trademark searches on. So it's really important that every time before you publish a book, whether it's start writing it or order and have a ghost ride begin writing it, do a trademark search. Because there are a lot of trademarks that a lot of people have no idea. You're not allowed to make books on. So we're gonna show you a few examples of that. So here we are uspto.gov. Go to trademarks, search trademarks. And it's a little slow, eh? Ah, here we go. There we go. Just go down, click on search, our trademark database. They have your whole trademark and official trademark database with all the registered, well, trademarks. Then you're gonna click here, basic word search, new user right there. So this is where the search for the trademark begins. So let's start over here. Before you can search the trademark to check it, you're just going to want to click live because there are things called dead and live trademarks. People will purchase a trademark for say 10 years and then after 10 years, if they don't renew it, it becomes dead and then anyone can make money from it. So if it's dead, it doesn't apply, we just wanna filter those out and only look at live trademarks, okay? So we're gonna give you guys a few examples. We're gonna run some keywords that we already know our trademark and then we're gonna show you guys how we know that. Yeah, right? A few really infamous publishing trademarks. Let's do that. Yes, yes. Let's start with the first one. What should we look at first? Let's start with Weight Watchers, shall we? So here are a few that we've looked at before. No, I can tell a little story about Weight Watchers. We both had Weight Watchers books back in the day. Back in 2016, beginning of 2017. It was one of my first five or 10 books that I ever published and you published your first and it worked so well if you was like, holy shit, oh, I gotta make Weight Watchers books. I'm a little kid, well, I was like 20 at that time. I didn't know what the hell was, I didn't know trademarks, I didn't think about that kind of stuff. So I made a book about it, published it and it was up for about six months probably. How much money? In that six months span, it probably made me $20,000. That one book. So like, yeah, that was a good book. That was a good book.  Now what happened is that book got taken down for trademark infringement. But when you did it, when both of us did it, we had no idea, I didn't even know what a trademark was. I had zero clue that you were not allowed to make books about Weight Watchers. But let's show you how we know you can't make books about Weight Watchers. So we searched Weight Watchers. Here come up a list of 103 records.  Normally there are not this many things that show up, but simply what you're gonna wanna do is just open up, create a new tab of every single word mark that is what you're searching for. So right here, Weight Watchers, Weight Watchers. All these other ones don't really apply. The other ones that are appearing are like, WWE Fresh, probably Weight Watchers Fresh.  That's why it's coming up. But I'm literally opening up every single one of these tabs, okay.  They have to register a certain trademark for a certain product or service. So what we're looking for is checking that these words or keywords do not have trademarks on books. Specifically so it will say in the registered trademark that this word, brand, whatever, trademark is registered for books so that you're not allowed to recreate any books using this word. And that's also why you'll see for Weight Watchers is like a bunch of different trademarks for Weight Watchers. And all you want for books, one for t-shirts, one for computer games, whatever. So Weight Watchers would register like 20 different trademarks for a bunch of different things that apply to their business. So we'll check this first one, Weight Watchers, food delivery was the first one. So you can't have a food delivery business with the name Weight Watchers. This next one, alcoholic beverages, namely wine. Can't make a wine business called Weight Watchers. Next one, providing a website featuring information in the field of recipes and cooking. Okay, that's a bad sign that it already says that. Now if it ended here, well okay, now we're on this one. If this one didn't come up, then we would be allowed to make books about Weight Watchers because there's no trademark specifically against books. If those were all the trademarks that were registered on USPTO.gov, we'd be good. But here's this next one, it says publications, and namely magazines, books, newsletters, diaries, cookbooks, instructional teaching materials. The rest doesn't matter, we can literally X out of all of these, Weight Watchers is trademarked for books. You can't make a Weight Watchers book. Now you know. Now you know. So shall we move on to another example? The most infamous Kindle publishing trademarked word term, Fortnite. Let's check it out, let's do what it says. So if you want a little bit of a background story on Fortnite, there are a handful, there are a lot of people in Kindle publishing who are publishing books about Fortnite and making like, I don't know, 10, 20K a month from one book. And it's not allowed at all, it's completely illegal. Anyone can do it because Fortnite is just like the easiest thing to make money in. So it is not allowed, we will show you how we know this. So let's open up. Now there's like 20 of them. Yeah, let's open up all of these Fortnite ones. It might be the first one, it might be the last one, but it's important that you do your due diligence and check each one of these trademarks. First one, bicycle lights, no, not it. Next one, signs, information. Search books. Yeah, what you can do is go like this, search books. Okay, no, nothing shows up for books there. Let's do that for all of them. Book, nothing shows up.  Troll F book. Okay, book bags, but that's not a book. So that's okay. Troll F book. Book bags also. Again. So Fortnite, let's keep on looking. Open up some more. I'll open up three, four, five. Let's search for that book trademark. Troll F book. Oh, three results. Boom, here we have children's books. Party ornaments, a paper, picture books, story books. Books about the topic of Fortnite are trademarked. And here's his children's books, but they probably have additional ones. Let's see what it says. Children's books, let's keep looking. Because what I'm talking about is more like gaming guides, gaming manuals. Here, here we have computer, game instruction manuals and video game hint books. Oopsies. Yeah, so. Not allowed. That is what a lot of people have been making shitloads of money with in Kindle publishing is making like these video game hint books and like Fortnite manuals. No, you were able to get away with it for quite a while, right? You could make a lot of money in that time. You could literally make 100K in six months with it. If you run ads and do everything right. With every one of these terms, it's just a matter of time before your book is taken down and your account gets terminated.   But now I think actually, Amazon's got a lot more strict about it to the point where if you have one trademark strike, you can get terminated. You gotta be careful as hell. You gotta be careful as hell. Like there could be something that you have no idea has a trademark on and I will show you an example. I am guilty of this one as well.  It just seems like an innocent diet like the Mediterranean diet or Keto diet or low carb diet. Those three diets are fine to use. Checked on all of them. Those are fine to use. But South Beach diet is not okay to use. I made a South Beach diet book back in 2017. When I learned about it, I was like, no, this book is doing well.  But it never got taken down. You took it down. I had to take it down. Just cause you knew the inevitable was coming. I'd already had two trademark strikes. One on Weight Watchers and one on Instant Pot. Both of which I had no idea was not allowed.  At the time, in the beginning you don't know a lot of things. Okay. It's closing to close. Let's see. So, South Beach diet, food supplements, vitamins, mineral supplements. Let's open up a few more. So, there we go. So the second one, books, printed guides, brochures, featuring topics related to weight loss. That answers the question. South Beach diet is not allowed. Let's do, should we look at any more or that really gives you a very good idea. Yeah, I mean, people get to point at this point. So, this is how you know. This is really the only thing you have to do to check for your trademarks. If your word or keyword or brand is trademark for books, can't use it. If it's not, you're allowed to make books about it. I want to give one final example of a term that has trademarks on it. Like Facebook has a bunch of trademarks on it.  But if you go through all of these, there will not be one that says you're not allowed to make books about Facebook. So, talking about Facebook, talking about Facebook advertising, Facebook marketing, how to grow a Facebook page, how to go viral on Facebook. That's completely allowed. You're allowed to make a book about that. I feel like for them, they're so big that for them it's just extra exposure. You know? They're so big that they don't care about selling books on it, you know? Well, I mean, it's not stealing away from their business at all. They don't have books. They want people to run Facebook ads. So they want books about Facebook ads to be out there. But it is possible that they registered trademark for it at some point. That's entirely possible. Right now, it's completely allowed. Let's quickly have a look at all these social networking software, computer hardware, computer software, cards, namely identity cards, computer databases, processing cards, networking, social, yeah. So, that shows you exactly how to check for trademarks on keywords before you publish books about them. One last time, make sure you do just one quick check. It won't take more than a few minutes before you write a book about a certain topic. Make sure you're allowed to do it. Yes, yeah, that wraps it up. So, thanks for watching this video. Magic emoji of the video. Oh, okay. It has to be the policeman. It has to be the policeman. Woo-wee-wee! Yeah, so if you want more publishing tutorials like this one, comment, no, well, well, you can't comment. Actually, do comment with the wee-woo thing. Like the video, subscribe for more publishing tutorials. Look at all our other videos. We got a bunch of publishing tutorial videos so you can learn everything about how to build a publishing business. Let's just be honest, we do have the best publishing tutorials on YouTube, so you do want to subscribe. Oh, no, you can't say that.  All right, see you guys in the next video. Bye. Okay. Woo!


Well, a month ago we told you about a hurricane relief drive being held by students at Voyager's Expeditionary School, where they spent the last month collecting items to send on a semi-truck down to Houston, Texas. Now, through the kindness and generosity of businesses and individuals, students collected over 1,500 items to send to families struggling to rebuild after Hurricane Harvey. Items ranging from school supplies to cleaning supplies were collected, leaving a lasting impression on students on how a community can come together to help those in need. I learned how much it takes to get other companies to help out and what kind of process it takes to get other big businesses to help out in town. But I also learned that when the community sees that a different community is in need, we are very good at getting together and helping out, so I like that a lot. Next, the semi-truck loaded with supplies will begin the 2,000 mile journey down to Houston, and will be making stops collecting more items from towns along the route. The driver, every item counts and will make a big difference for those in need. My expectations, if I can even fill half the trailer, I'd be ecstatic. The fact that this is going to help families that are in desperate need of these supplies, if we can even help a handful of families, that's, you know, what I'm really shooting for. The Hurricane Relief Drive was put together by participating chapters of JCIUSA. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


So a proverb is a concise statement of an apparent truth and now comes one more important element, which has currency. We all know the early bird catches the worm, we know big fish eat little fish, we know a stitch in time saves nine. But the question always is, are there new proverbs? And there are of course, take for example, some students who happen to be skiers and they go snowboarding. And if you ask them what kind of proverbs do you use up on the hill? Well, a new proverb is go big or go home. My favorite proverb happens to be different strokes for different folks popularized by the famous song by Sly and the Family Stone, Different Folks in 1968. And that proverb is so different from hundreds of others in that it does not tell us what to do, but rather gives us the freedom of acting the way we want. With one caveat, I always tell my students, different strokes for different folks does not mean you can do whatever you want. There is a certain ethical element that belongs to that equation. But different strokes for different folks is truly an American proverb that expresses perhaps the world view that we in general have in this country.


All right, thank you, this recording is on. Yes, thank you. All right, welcome everyone. This is the weekly TSC call. Everyone is welcome to join. There are two requirements to joining though. The first one is to live by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is currently displayed if you're on the Zoom client. And the other part is the code of conduct, which you all should know about by now. And with that in mind, everybody is welcome to listen in and participate, hopefully in a constructive matter. So is there any announcements? Okay.  Yeah, I guess maybe we can do it during the discussion items for the election. But my announcement was that the call for nominations has started. I published it in the agenda. So there's a link to a page that shows the email that was sent out to everybody and it has instructions for how to nominate. So basically, yeah, so basically, what Dave is saying, we are started implementing the TSC election plan. There are some issues. And so we will be discussing this later on. But so as I was saying, we had quite a few quarterly reports sent out, some of which were from the week before somewhere late. And we just had a couple more added within the last 24 hours or so. I don't know that everybody has had a chance to look at them. I did go through all of them. There is one issue really that will need to be discussed. And it's the Bezu team is asking about the use of SamVare. They're interesting in switching to a different system, which is calendar based called CalVare. And currently, this is a TSC decision that we really should use SamVare. So switching will require TSC discussion. I think it's, you know, there's enough to discuss this that I don't think we want to get into this now. My recommendation, Dano, is to bring it up actually as an issue. We can open an issue in the decision log to get that discussed because I don't think this is going to be a quick one. We should have a formal resolution. I mean, essentially, there are three ways either we accept that as an alternative, we force everybody to stick with SamVare or we force everybody to switch to CalVare. I think none of the above is an easy decision to be made. And people are going to want to discuss why and really is that necessary and whatnot. So tell me if I'm wrong, but I think this is going to require more time than we should spend during the quarterly reports. Do you want it on the Wiki or do you want it in the GitHub? Yeah, on the Wiki, we have that. You go in the decision log, you create another proposal that says, you know, you can look at what I did for this, the rollover policy, for instance. Got it. I'll have it ready for next week. I like it. It's like a star date then. Basically. But when this got started, like way, way, way back, the decision was, we went with SamVare just to prevent people from having crazy numbers.  I don't know that we all need to use the same system. And there's also consequences about what is a major promoted release and what isn't, right? And it was easy with SamVare, we would just say, when the big number changes, right, the top number changes. Because we spend money for promoted releases. We do audits and we do marketing and all that. We already went away from that. That's a good point. You're breaking up. What was that? Heart. I had lost heart. Yeah, I put heart on mute because that was an audio storm. Yeah. My apologies. No, it's terrible. Sorry. Try again. I know he's just muted again. Okay. All right. So anyway, I, yes. Oh, sorry. I was just saying, didn't we go away from the major releases being tied to, you know, 1.0, 2.0. And we said that people could just ask for the TSC for major releases? You're right about that, Hart.  There was a, to get back to Hart's point, we did move away from major releases to what we call now promoted release, acknowledging that, you know, those two things are not necessarily the same. Right. Cause Fabric 1.2 was a promoted major release. What was a promoted release? But so this is exactly the kind of stuff we have to take into account in this discussion, unless everybody agrees right off the bat to say, yeah, they can do Calvary if they want to. And we just have that as an option. I think otherwise it's probably going to take a little bit of discussion to understand the ins and outs, such as what was just bought up. So my inclination is, I mean, it doesn't sound like this is an urgent matter that needs to be solved this week either. So we should just create an issue for this and take the time to discuss it and maybe have some discussion offline. People can react to, you know, and we can get everybody's ideas. I mean, frankly, I had not thought about all the things that had been brought up already just in the last few minutes. So I think more might be brought up if we give people a bit of time to think about it. So is there anything else from the reports that people want to highlight or ask about? I didn't see anything else that needed to take TSE called this time. Okay. If nobody has anything, then I think we can move on to the discussion part. Thank you all for those who have put the reports together. We're cranking. Okay. So, well, so I had planned to talk about the rollover, but given the urgency of the TSE election issue, I will insert the, I thought Dave, you said you were editing the agenda, but I don't see the modification of the page. You've not published that yet. Let's talk about the TSE election first. We need to take care of that. How about that? There it goes. It should be published now in the minutes, not in the agenda in the minutes. Oh, well. Okay. Fine. Let me throw it over into that here. Tell people what do they need to do. It's all right. Let's get to it. Dave, what's the status? What are the issues that are we already know about? Okay. So the, we're currently in the process of accepting nominations for the TSE election. We've been running, I was running the scripts all last week gathering emails and trying to track down duplicate emails and figure out which one they wanted and, you know, remove all the no replies. And we got a pretty clean list. I'm going to do one more pass. I started one yesterday processing everybody's emails and I'm going to do a delta and so we'll send some more emails out the call for nomination once I know the next set of emails, but it's only a handful of people. It's only like a dozen or so. So my point being is that now would be the time to resolve these and get good emails if anybody is having a problem. We sent out an email to the list that I've shared to the members of the election, you know, the observers, right? We don't really have official election observers, but people in the elections mailing list. And I think we had something like 700, 643 emails went out. 644 emails went out. Anyway, we're having issues. We're saying I didn't get it. And let's tackle the first one. The first question was, do we consider Wiki contributions as contributions eligible for voting? Because that's the one Mark raised because he said he wasn't in the list or hasn't received one. Mark expects to be on because he has been contributing to the Wiki. He's also chair of the working group, isn't he? Yes. And I'm on the TSC, which we think is a technical contribution. So, yes. So I just need guidance from the TSC. Should I include TSC members automatically? And do we include maintainers automatically and chairs of working groups automatically? But, okay, so you think the maintainers, they will show up at least in the Yeah, the maintainers will because you don't get to be a maintainer without contribution. I think you're, no, not all maintainers are making commits, right? If I just do a merge because I do a PR review and I merge, that doesn't appear? No, it doesn't appear. It depends on the kind of merge. It depends on the kind of merge. If it's a fast forward merge, then there is no merge commit. If there's not a fast forward merge, then there is a merge commit and your name will get in there. And actually, if you do it using GitHub's tool, I don't think it tags it as you, but I might be wrong about that one. So, what I'm hearing is that the scripts are very narrowly, you know, selecting people because, you know, quite frankly, I always tell maintainers should take on more review work. And if they only did that, that would still be extremely valuable to the community. And if that doesn't count to us being eligible, we have a problem. So I put a link out there on the chat of the TSC election voter selection decision that we made back in February about who would be allowed to be on the election list, which was the people from the Git contributors tool that was run, as well as the email for the work group and task force chairs. And anybody that the work group and task force chairs determined were that they contributed documentation or technical artifacts. So, thank you, Tracy, for bringing that up. So, at least the first question is, does our list, the list that was used, right, for the call for nomination, match this decision? It does not. I will correct this today. I will get the list together. What are we missing? Which part are we missing? The work, the task force chairs and the emails, well, the, yeah, the work force and task work groups and task force chairs, and any exceptions that they submit to me, they have not been included explicitly. I bet some of them have already been included because I bet some of them have made contributions as developers. But yeah, I have not explicitly done that, and I will get on that as soon as possible. That's my top priority for today. Thanks, Tracy, for pointing this out. You're right. We missed this. So, I will notice that these not include wiki contributions, at least not just done, you know, because you're contributing to the wiki. If you do it through a task force or working group, obviously you'll be included, but not otherwise. So, that's the state, that's the status quo. So, does it include people like Grace Hartley because she, you know, does a lot for Bezu and all, and I would consider her work technical, but she may not have contributions. Grace filed an exception and it was approved. So, Grace is in the list. On what basis? She was writing all of the quarterly reports for Bezu. I think was the basis for which she was selected or was accepted. I mean, I have no problem with, you know, with her being included, except that this exception seems a bit like a one-off, which is not in line with the decision. And now, how are we going to do this based on the case-by-case basis, based on what criteria? We ought, I mean, the whole idea was we're going to have a plan that's transparent. People know what we are doing. Now it sounds like, well, we don't know what we're doing. The discussion was on the elections list that you're on, I don't know. Yeah, but this is more than the list, right? I mean, I didn't see the decision being made, but we're in a much better spot than we think, I don't know. And we've always had an exceptions-based approach to this, which necessarily has a subjective element to it. So, you know, I, yeah, this is, and I think it's not really comfortable for anybody to talk about kind of specific individuals in a form like a TSE call. So, yeah. I agree. That's why I was getting back to rules and policies, kind of, you know, what's the rule that we use, and, you know.  Satisfied with the approach that we've taken to have this elections mailing list and have this process. I mean, you've been a part of the conversation of how we set this up to this point. So, it's, yeah, it feels a bit frustrating, I think, for those who are trying to follow these rules. So, what is the decision now? What are we doing? What do we need to do? Well, for your guidance, I'm going to get the work group and task force chairs and email them all today personally and ask them for a list of exceptions according to the decision that Tracy just pointed out. That if we're going to follow the rules, that's exactly what the rules say. But again, we have these exceptions. Yes. So, what I could use. We at least need to be in line with the decision we've made and make sure the people we see will be included are. That seems to be a minimum bar we need to to retrain. Yep. I'll report back on the resolution of that as soon as I have one. So, probably tomorrow or the next day. But I could use guidance from the TSC on, are we going to make any rules about exceptions? I always thought it was just kind of squint and turn your head sideways. And yeah, they seem like a contributor to the community. If they can show that they've made significant contributions, I don't see why we shouldn't just allow them to file for an exception and be considered. And really, it's not even significant contributions. It's intentionally intended to be broad to sweep as many folks who have participated as you can. Not a trivial comment on rocket chat or an email list, but on a contribution to the Wiki that's more than just a comment or a typo fix. And so, it's necessarily subjective. And because we have intended to make it broad, if you wanted to limit it to maintainers or limit it to, you know, only people who've made a commit, then you can be more objective about it. I would disagree with that. I would disagree. The charter specifically calls out what should and should not be accepted as a contribution and should be eligible for TSC election. In the past three years, I believe it's been now, maybe just two, we've allowed the workgroups to decide, the workgroup chairs to decide who would be allowed from the working group to participate. So, I guess, you know, obviously, this is a challenge every year, right? And I think that was part of the reason we tried to come up with the decision early in this year as to who would be eligible so that if there were any sort of issues, right, we could talk about it at that point. And it seems like having this conversation again every year, when we've already kind of made the decision seems like, you know, I don't know. It just seems pointless to continue to have the same conversation over and over. I echo your frustration. I would love to have just clear rules and just do it, right?  Tracy pointed out what the decision was. And if we stuck to this, some people could argue the rules are a suck, but they are the rules. And until we change the status quo, that's what we have. I think the fact that there are exceptions make the whole thing a bit less certain and obvious and will bring people naturally to say, well, what about this? What about that? So the team is trying hard to do the right thing. And I'm not trying to throw rocks at anybody here. I just, I can allege that this makes the situation kind of sensitive and difficult. Yeah. So what's the recommendation then? Are you, because if there's no change in the well, I know we heard from Tracy. So I'd like to hear from the others. I mean, it's not just up to me, right? How do other TSE members feel? I thought it was, we were taking people that made technical contributions to Hyperlinker, for the most part, that, you know, we explicitly, I think, ruled out work from SIGs because they're not under the control or the domain of the technical steering committee. And we had some big discussions on that. But, you know, they wouldn't be voting for someone to represent them. But other people who made non-code, but technical contributions were, you know, part considered part of this. It's a good only thing. All right. So, but it sounds like your expectation is different from the official TSE decision we have on record for now. Is your position that we should compromise the decision? We have a decision log that describes exactly the process that we agreed to. What are we, what are we going that's different? Yeah. So we heard from Dave, he has acknowledged that the way the list was built is not completely compliant with this. The proposal that was approved says the CAs also email all of the work groups and task force chairs to determine who has contributed. Did that happen? It's going to happen today, Chris. We were just talking about that. Tracy pointed out, I was like, yep, that's right. I forgot that. So I'm going to send that out today. This is why we have a two-week or whatever three-week nomination period. So, okay. So, pardon me. That was my mistake. It was an oversight by myself. I was so focused on getting a clean list from our repos that I did not do that, but I'm going to do that today and I'll report back. Okay. And so in terms of Grace, and again, I think she's made tons of contributions. I think that's great. I think she should have a vote. But I suspect that the process for how she was approved is somewhat sketchy. And if we include the TSC as a working group, which I think it is, essentially, then our know should be able to make that call. Right. I agree with that. The process is undefined. I wouldn't say sketchy. It's just defined per our rules. And it's not very transparent. Well, I don't know who approved her. I mean, it is my point. Well, the process is exceptions are to be emailed to the election mailing list. And the election mailing list is made up of everybody who volunteered to want to keep an eye on it and provide input on the election. And we just discussed it. And it was kind of like, it was consensus. Yeah. And this was definitely this was also this was also posted in the election plan that was reviewed by the TSC. If you see there under the FAQs, there's I think I should be eligible to vote in the hyper ledger TSElection. How do I appeal to be included? Send an email to elections that lists your name, your email. And then it's discussed there. That's the process that was reviewed. That's correct. I mean, the process doesn't go as far saying on the world what criteria you might be eligible, but that's left open and that I guess by design. Well, yeah, by definition by design. I mean, that's what we designed is that it would just be by consensus, I guess, right? Like we would just discuss it. Okay. But it doesn't specify whom who gets to make the decision or under what circumstances they would deny it, right? Which is also important. So I think we're we're in pretty good shape better than maybe it sounded initially and Brian is right in that regard. And so it sounds like there was a gap with regard to the groups. This is the, you know, email to the chairs not being sent out, but it will be. And once this is done, and we collect the people they have nominated will be in back in tape. Is that clear for everybody? Or is there more confusion that needs to be cleared up? Okay, hearing none, I guess we're good. We can move on. Then let's just execute on that. And hopefully this can be so then there was there was one other issue under election discussion, which was did you get the email that went out for nominations? And I just received some statistics from Jessica Rampen. She said we sent out 670 emails. The open rate so far is 34%. There were 627 emails actually delivered. 391 have been opened 49 of them bounced. So and we're getting a report back from the LF about who has opted out of receiving emails from us so that I can personally email them and say, Hey, you've opted out. But, you know, we're trying to send out election notices, right? So I'm going to be handling those personally. It's a small number. Maybe it doesn't or so. But anyway, the emails went out and it, you know, there's 49 bounces. So I'm just curious. I mean, Hart said he didn't receive his even though he's in the list. So I just want to know that I've received mine. But who did it come from? Who sent it? Oh, the email that sent out will came from our marketing cloud. So it should. So Dave, I found mine. It's in my Gmail promotions folder. So it got flagged as a promotion, which is why I didn't see it. So I suspect that there are other people with Gmail accounts who are probably in the same boat. It came from no dash reply at email.hyperledger.org. Yeah, it came from the marketing cloud. So that's just going to go right to the right to the promotions. All right, maybe that's not the best channel then. There's really no effective way to send out lots of customer, you know, lots of direct emails, except to use tools to do it that get flagged as spam tools.  And last year, last year we tried to set up a groups.io list, you know, for voters. And that, that also flailed for, for different reasons. So, right. The marketing cloud is our, and by the way, sorry, right. Go ahead. All right. I mean, I was going to say the marketing cloud is our most reliable way to get emails to our community members in Asia as well. So we had problems last year where a lot of them didn't receive the communications. And so we went with that one this year and it's not perfect. It's difficult. So I mean, I think we've resolved this. I, yeah, I mean, if people feel like they haven't, you know, that are on this call, feel like they haven't received it, just reach out to me or email the elections at list.hyperlegio.org and the election at list.hyperlegio.org and we'll deal with it piecemeal. And look into the spam folder. Yeah. Yeah. I thought that I was going to have everything go to my work email. All right. You can apply with Dave. Yeah. Sorry, Chris. What was that? Email address. I had asked that the voting stuff go to my regular, my work email, because my Gmail is just flooded with hyperledger from every it's awesome. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Take it up with me and we'll sort it out. Like email election at list.hyperlegio.org and say, Hey, can you use this email? Because that's how I'm processing these, these email cleanups is all the messages sent to that mailing list. Okay. Anything else on this election stuff? Hopefully we're in good shape to make progress. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to the other agenda item that I put on the agenda for today, which is this, now what I call wall over of projects tied to a single other project. So we discussed it already. Two weeks ago on the call, I introduced the topic that came out of initially a comment against one of the project reports. And I said, you know, we had this kind of straw poll at the end and there were some people were at least interested in continuing this discussion, looking into what a proposal would look like. And so I did put a draft together. And I submitted it for everybody to comment. There were some comments, but very few. I know Aruna was on and he had to drop off unfortunately, but he was interested in discussing this. He actually has a proposal that's in the comment section that goes beyond that. I don't know that we have to get into that now, because it's kind of related, but it's sometimes different. He wants to be suggesting some changes to the project life cycle by adding another phases, another phase to the whole thing. And I think it's somewhat orthogonal to this very topic. So there was a comment from Hart on the mailing list saying, before we adopt this, we should definitely kind of test drive it by the maintainers, a project that would be potentially impacted by this, which sounded like a reasonable thing to me to do. We should, but you know, we have people already significant number of people on the call, not just the TSC members, but maintainers of your projects. So I'm inviting everyone to chime in there. What's the gut reaction? Is there anything you would want to change or want about, you know, any of those things? Do you love it? Do you hate it? I ask that people use the raise hand thing to chime in, please. That sounds like a good idea. Thank you. So Nathan is first. I like the idea that we should ask the project leads. There's a lot about this that kind of depends on the specifics of the situation. And I think that as long as, I think in some cases, these projects ended up as their own standalone thing, because of the history of what's been, what's happened at Hyperledger over time. And we want to make the decision that helps the project recruit maintainers and contributors and, you know, have good project health. I mean, to be honest, for me, the idea of folding it back underneath one of the frameworks, if that's what's appropriate is, to that end, to try to make sure that they have good support from those maintainers of the framework and that issues can be addressed quickly with the most appropriate audience. So I liked the comment of walking through this with who might be affected and seeing what improvements we can make to the decision criteria based on what they tell us. Okay, thank you. Chris? Yeah, I wanted to, I mean, I think, well, okay, so for starters, let me say that I think that the formal proposal could be a little bit more strongly worded to indicate that this is really up to the maintainers. We can't force maintainers to take on some work that they're not prepared to handle and that they don't feel is going to be effectively supported. And so I don't think we can, I don't think we can force a decision. I think this is really more to the point of, if we see that something hasn't happened, then we make a recommendation that the maintainers of the target project, if you will, or the take up a consideration of whether or not to deal with it. But that's the end of that, I think. If they choose to consume it, then that's fine. But if they don't, I think we have to sort of abide by those wishes and either leave the status quo. But I think it sort of then begs the question, okay, what do you do with an incubating project that's still an incubation 18 months after the fact? And so I think that we probably want to have a separate conversation about that. You know, should a project that's been incubating for 18 months have another status of move it into labs? Or I don't know what, but we probably don't want to have things in incubation forever is what I'm saying. But in terms of the decision, I think the decision is not the TSC's decision. I think it's the maintainer's decision. It's just that the TSC should make a plea to the target project and say, hey, we'd really like you to consider subsuming this project. Okay, thank you. I see nobody on the queue. So I'll jump in there to say, I mean, so first, the proposal clearly at the end, it says, talks about due consideration of the specific case at hand and communication with the maintainer of both projects involved. It's, you know, I would hope that this, I mean, convey what you're talking about, which, you know, we, we can't just say, hey, you project become part of that other project with this other project, you know, not even being consulted and agreed to this, you know. So that wouldn't make sense to me. At the same time, you know, the maintainers, we have, it's not like, you know, projects have a single bag of maintainers for the whole project, right? You look at fabric, we have many different repositories with different maintainers, sets of maintainers for the different repositories, which correspond to different sub project kind of things, right? And, and so I would imagine in a rollover, that would be the case, the maintainers of the current project would remain maintainer of that project, they just become the sub project kind of thing. And, you know, they can continue doing their thing just the same way. It means from an organizational point of view, from a hyperledger, you know, structure, we only sees that as one project. And, and I think the TSE has a role to play in making decisions as to what should be recognized as top level project or not. I do think it has to be, you know, as we always try to, to get things, you know, based on consensus as much as possible, I wouldn't want us to say, okay, those guys really don't want it to happen, but screw them, we're going to do it anyway, whether you like it or not. I hope we can avoid this kind of situation for sure. But, you know, fundamentally, I don't think it's entirely up to the maintainers. I think the TSE has the responsibility to manage the overall, you know, greenhouse to speak. And so it's part of managing this to say, you guys really belong to, you know, together, you should merge. So I'm in the uncomfortable position of asking everyone to raise their hand. And I just learned that as a host, I cannot raise my own hand. You just touched on a point that I wanted to raise, which is, you know, weeding the greenhouse, right? I don't think it was, I feel that it was not entirely awesome how composer played out the length of time over which the composer deprecation played out. And I, I mean, it's when we have so many projects at the top level that are small and independent, that that's fine. But when they're small and small and dependent, I think it becomes hard to justify. And I will see the floor to Chris.  Yeah, so composer, okay, so it was not pretty, I agree. But we were trying to be very sort of cautious about things. And so there was an initial announcement that the maintainers weren't going to maintain it any further, other than, I think, to fix critical bugs. And, and we declared at that point in time that we would go through, I can't remember if it was six months, but I think it was six months. And then we would deprecate it formally. And then the deprecation would take a year. So it did take 18 months if I'm not mistaken. And that was just to be sort of an abundance of caution. And, you know, there was a lot of Henry and discussion around that, but you know, you don't want to just yank the rug out from somebody abruptly. And so we tried to do our best. And I just wanted to sort of make that point. I agree. It wasn't pretty, but it was the first time and we didn't really want to upset the situation. All right, thank you. So I'd like to hear from the others. We have a mass of people being silent. And I'm going to put you on the spot, but like people like Hart, Tracy, you guys were, you know, last time we talked about this, you guys were like, I'm not sure where this is going. So I'm interested to hear if your thoughts, you know, if you have your position as involved in any way, you know, pro this or against it doesn't matter, but I'm happy to talk, but I think people who raised their hand should probably go first. Well, okay, put your, put your hands up. Okay, Angelo, go ahead. Yeah, I have a certain, I also don't have a definite opinion on this, but my point is the following. If we are spending money on, on this project and the goal of this project was to serve multiple projects and this goal is not achieved. And again, we are spending money for this project. Then I think we are entitled to tell them a, maybe you go to this other project because we can, we have to spend resources in better ways. This is just the best argument that came, came with so, but if you are not spending money, if you are not wasting resources for this project, maybe what Chris said, I cannot, I cannot go against really that. All right, so this is something maybe the staff can talk to more than me, but it was said before that there was a cost associated with this and, you know, there's a cost which I have been pointing out regarding just the communication barrier we're creating with having so many top-level projects that seem to be independent when they sometimes are not. But beyond that, there is also some financial aspects, resources, dedicated to those projects that maybe they wouldn't get otherwise. Maybe Brian can talk about this. Yep, so we haven't spent any money that I could track at least as on, on Transact. It hasn't been the subject of any, any press or push that we've made. We have not been asked to or consider doing a security audit for it, although, you know, if it were, if they were to ask or if we were on the path to 1.0, it's certainly considerate. I think those are costs that would be largely the same if it were re-emerged back in with Sawtooth. So, you know, some of that it's a rush, I think. I mean, if anything, we would love to talk more about projects that, that you haven't even hit 1.0 yet. So, you know, part of, part of me is just wondering, is this a question about how we help Transact hit its original goal, right? Is there something constructive we can do? You know, I don't think any maintainers from the project are here on the call or even folks involved with Sawtooth are here on the call. So, I would, I would just be, I don't know, again, get back to your question about costs. There aren't really any costs from that point of view. There's a cost theoretically from a larger greenhouse than otherwise, but even that is super hard to measure. But I don't want Transact to be singled out. There's actually quite a long list of projects that fall into that category. I'm thinking of Explorer, Chiello. I mean, these projects are fabric related whether we like it or not.  Yes. I mean, it's to be well curated, for sure. So, I'm just pointing out, it's not just Transact. I don't want to this to become like this is either Transaction be rolled over or not. It's a bigger question than that. All right, thank you. We have other people, so hot. Sure. To me, this sort of boils down to a marketing issue, right? You know, if we have projects merge back in, then as Brian points out, you know, it really doesn't change like a lot of the, you know, underlying costs like security audits, you know, whatever, whatever like that, you know, if any of these projects go back in, then, you know, all of this is still going to be the same, right? You know, we're just sort of putting, you know, repos and saying like, well, we're not even going to change the maintainer structure of these repos, you know, maybe we'll just rename them, move them to a different folder, you know, something like this. So to me, this really just comes down to marketing and sort of how we want to market Hyperledger. And, you know, what are we presenting to sort of outside people? You know, is it too confusing? You know, this is sort of the drawback of having, you know, all of these projects to me anyway, is that like, you know, if I see this like huge greenhouse, sort of where do I get started?  You know, so that's just my perspective on it. And I would be curious if people thought similarly or differently. All right, thank you. Tracy. All right, I think you have a really interesting perspective there, right? I think it's how do we, how do we communicate kind of what might be ready for production usage versus not or whatever terminology you want to use, use that if it makes you happier, right? But, you know, I think when I originally put my hands up, it was for a couple of different reasons. One, I think the proposal is let's kick the can down the road. It doesn't really solve the problem that we have. It really is, I think, important that we have these hard conversations with the projects that we're concerned about. And we have those sooner rather than later. But I also think that Arun brings up some interesting points in his comment. And I think it boils down to expectations and the fact that we don't all have the same expectations of particular projects. And that is what's causing us some of this grief and headache is because we, you know, in some cases expected a project to support multiple other projects and it didn't end up happening, right?  But maybe, you know, we need to do a better job of documenting what these expectations are as kind of Arun is pointing out, right? Having shared goals, shared understanding of what this project is intending to do and understanding whether or not it's reaching those goals, understanding that at the same point, right? Paths can change, right? It's not always a straight path to where you want to go. And sometimes that ends up meaning that things go in a different direction than you were originally expecting. And being able to understand that and accept that those changes are going to occur and that those goals that you might set out initially or those expectations that you might set out initially are not where you're going to end up in the long run. So in the end, it boils down to having the conversations, making sure that we're understanding where people are, where they're going with these projects, and whether or not that is something that, you know, we can accept and say, okay, now we understand what our shared expectations should be. All right, thank you very much. I do appreciate the fact that you point to Arun's comment. There was one thing that I think is very relevant to the discussion, which is, you know, should the charter have some kind of timeline set into them where that would, you know, say, give us some kind of time boundaries that would be helpful in determining whether projects have achieved their goals or not. And, you know, this is very common in like charters of working groups in standards world.  The template doesn't ask for any kind of timeline at that level. And so, you know, I don't know, that's something definitely that is worth thinking about. Quickly, because I want to give time to Mark, I wanted to ask you why you're saying this proposal doesn't solve the problem, it just kicks the can down the road. I mean, I guess I've been staring at the proposal for too long during this call, I know, and I've been reading it more closely. When I first read it, I'm like, yeah, okay, this makes sense, right? But like, basically, I don't know what we're doing with the existing projects. Is this only for new projects, or is this 18 months from now that we're going to start having these discussions? And so I think that's my biggest concern right now, just having stared at it for so long. All right, fair enough. And that helps. So I can tell you, I mean, I cannot claim the text accurately reflects that when I wrote it, I actually tried to write in such a way that it's, you know, 18 months from their beginning, whenever that was. So for anything that's over 18 months, and that falls into the category, we could open that up and say, okay, it's been more than 18 months for that project, the illustration, what do we do? So that was, so from that point of view, that's why I was asking why you think it kicks down the road. I would think we would stop looking at the least one by one and say, okay, which project and I named a few others, right, Explorer and Cielo, and maybe there are others that haven't thought about it yet, but we could do an exhaustive review of the different projects to see which one falls in that category, and then bring them up one by one to the TSC to discuss and see what the situation is and whether we need to make it take action. So with that said, Mark, please. Sure. So a couple thoughts here.  You know, so that's, to me, also a marketing angle, right? Do we want that up there? But you know, is it going to help or hurt projects? And this is probably the flip side of it. Is it going to help or hurt some of these projects if they got moved under a different one? You know, as far as getting people to contribute to it, things like that, um, maybe it would have no impact. And the final thought would be, we should also, you know, going forward, do we want to consider for new projects coming in that want to be a standalone project if they only work with fabric or sawtooth? Do we, you know, but they claim they're working on working with other ones? Do we want to wait till they actually, you know, support multiple frameworks before they're elevated to a full project and initially they'd start under one of the other projects? Take a look at a project like Fabric Private Chain Code. I think that's gone through the correct type of process where it starts as a Hyperledger Lab project and then we see if, you know, it makes sense, see if it's actually going to work and then we can bring it over and have it be part of Fabric as opposed to trying to set up camp as an incubating project under the, you know, under the greenhouse, under the umbrella and then find that, well, it wasn't really going to pan out and now what do we do with it, right? I think we should be encouraging more things to start in the labs and then if they make sense, they make sense, right? And we, you know, figure out if they need to be a standalone or if they need to be, you know, brought in under another project, but that decision, it becomes less of a hand-reading kind of a thing, I think, if it's a lab than if it's already incubating. So I don't know if we can do anything about what we have today, you know, that's still, we have to do some hand-reading, but I think in the future as people come up with ideas for new projects, I really think that we should be encouraging them to start as a lab and see if they can get some traction. So I do think we do that already at least to a certain extent, right? But if you take the example of a transact that came out of Sotuth or, I guess, Grid is the same and, you know, they were in a project already. So for them going into a lab doesn't seem to make much sense. But yeah, maybe Mark is right that, you know, they say, okay, we want to be a top-level project because our technology is not really, you know, specific the project we are part of. And maybe, I mean, this is, I think, I forget who pointed that out earlier, is that hurt or not? The idea was, well, if we put them as top-level, they become more visible and people have an opportunity to come in and contribute to support other frameworks, except if it doesn't happen, that's the situation we're talking about, then what? So they were promoted a top-level project on the basis that they could be framework-independent, but really it didn't happen. So that's the situation we're trying to tackle here. And it's not easy. I think there are different ways you can find yourself in that situation. And again, you know, I made that clear in my message or in my proposal. It's, you know, I think if these things happen independently of any good will on all parts. So, all right, we're out of time. Obviously, this is a discussion that we'll have to keep going. We won't have a call next week. There's the Hyperledger members submit. Several of us are part of this. So we'll skip next week, probably meet in two weeks from now. But please use the comment section on the wiki. And let's get this discussion going. Thank you.