Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The Technical Working Group China participated in the HKBootcamp and was highly visible. I think it is a good idea for other working groups to think about how to recruit and engage more with the community thru events like Bootcamps etc.
For example, my team has been discussing with the Learning Materials Working Group about how they will recruit. First from the projects themselves, and then how do we help them market themselves to get more volunteers? Of course, having a good landing page on the wiki helps!
Also, Hyperledger has been starting up a bunch of SIGs. I believe some people are moving to those SIGs. And Ecosystem team is actively recruiting new members to participate there first. Should we look at how we cross "advertise" internally? Or look at how we "advertise" to new members and externally.
What other paths to recruitment should we explore?
Todd, the Fabric maintainers would welcome additional help in documenting Fabric or providing and curating samples. They don’t write themselves.
I tend to agree with Hart’s analysis, and while I have a regular call that conflicts, I join occasionally and am definitely interested in the subject matter.
I’d agree with Todd that working with a traditional benchmarking org would be good, as would input into Caliper and other performance testing efforts.
We aren’t yet at a point where we can effectively provide guidance on comparative performance characteristics, which is ultimately what people will be seeking.
I tend to agree, but I also think another factor is that as we've
moved from initial versions of the various platforms to production
ready platforms, people are probably getting tied up working on
those production deployments. I know for me it's mostly a matter of
I participate when I don't have conflicts or not traveling.
Personally I'd like to see us move in the direction of helping some
standards organizations define blockchain benchmarks that can be
used to evaluate blockchain platforms, as I'm not sure we're in the
business of setting those kinds of standards. Someone please
correct me if I'm wrong. I may have asked this before, but has
anyone reached out to TPC to see if they're interested in creating
some blockchain benchmarks?
With respect to the documentation, agreed it's fairly weak, and in
particular design documentation is sorely lacking, at least for
Fabric. I can't speak to the other platforms. Samples/examples is
another area that is pretty weak. Our platforms are so feature rich
that it's hard to pick them up without a set of rich
PS FWIW I'll be on the call tomorrow.
On 3/18/2019 5:28 PM, Montgomery, Hart
think this is probably true for most working groups. At
least from what I’ve seen and heard (and to be fair, this is
not a huge sample size), fewer people are participating in
the working groups, and those who are generally are
not sure this is a bad thing, in many cases. I think some
people have replaced spending time on working groups with
time spent on regular projects. Personally, I’ve spent less
time on working group stuff since Ursa has begun (and,
obviously, more time on Ursa), which is probably a kind of
progression we want to encourage in Hyperledger. Having
people that come into the working groups looking to learn
become regular contributors surely is a positive thing.
the other hand, as the working groups seem to focus more and
more on work products—which is typically
documentation--fewer people seem to be interested since
there is often substantial outside work involved, and not
necessarily of the fun kind. In particular, I think every
SWOT analysis we have done on Hyperledger involves
documentation being listed as a weakness. While
documentation has gotten better, it’s still something that I
think most people would agree needs a lot of work on most
aspects of Hyperledger.
for a TL;DR: from my viewpoint, people are leaving working
groups to contribute (great!) or avoid documentation work
(not so great).
these experiences jibe with yours (or others’)?
for another long email.
On Behalf Of mark wagner
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 12:33 PM
Cc: Hyperledger List
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the
future of the PSWG
I would like to carry this discussion
mostly in the mailing lists in order to be as inclusive as
Over the last few months attendance and
participation on the Performance and Scale WG (PSWG) calls
has been declining. I am wondering if we need to shift
focus a bit to get more people involved and make progress.
There are many possible directions we
can head in and I have included some thoughts here, but if
others have additional ideas please feel encouraged to add
First is stay the course. We are
currently struggling to get our thoughts on describing
metrics for provenance captured to paper.
Do we want to focus more on actual
performance work vs just defining metrics / use case
papers. This does not need to be "just running tests".
We can do things like examine trade
offs between different design decisions, examine different
crypto solutions / technologies from a perf and scale
perspective, help understand cost performance tradeoffs.
Perhaps we help spin up testnets and
drive testing of different DLT frameworks ?
Do we provide a performance analysis
service to the different projects that is based on
architecture decisions. Perhaps something similar to what
several research students have done (Harish and his team,
I am trying to cut a wide swath here to
avoid limiting peoples thoughts, so any and all comments
are encouraged. If you have not been involved in the PSWG
and would be interested in participating if we did "X"
then speak up!
Chair, Performance and Scale