toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I believe a production ready release should imply that the project embodies mature technology and open source practices including community. That is, the project is ready to use in production because the code and the community which maintains it are sound.
Additionally, the assessment of what constitutes mature for a project will continue to evolve with the maturity of this field as a whole.
In the specific case of Iroha and its active status, I recall an optimistic judgement that graduating Iroha would foster more community growth. That has not yet been the case. I'm reluctant to repeat that same calculus hoping for a different result.
Fabric had a set of release criteria for 1.0 documented here:
These aren't Hyperledger criteria, these were what the maintainers came up with as a measure of
maturity suitable for what we felt to be a 1.0 GA release.
I agree we are in a difficult position having already allowed Iroha to graduate to Active status.
While the full discussion is omitted, when we reviewed the request to graduate to Active status, we did
have a discussion of the diversity of contributors. If memory serves, there was a desire to continue to drive diversity
of contributor, and that resulted in DaveH visiting with the team to help them become more integrated
with the broader community. At the time, there were a few individual contributors that had fixed bugs etc,
yet if I look at the most recent 6 months, the contributions are almost exclusively from Soramitsu.
Here we are with a request to go to 1.0, and while the code may be robust, the diversity of contributing
organizations is actually much worse than it was reported at the request to graduate.
So, while I am in agreement that 1.0 should be a measure of maturity of the code, I really think that we need to reconsider how we evaluate requests to graduate. I also think that all of our projects need to double down on growing diversity of contributors and maintainers.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:58 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...
I essentially agree with Dave. I think
we found ourselves in an odd situation with Iroha in Active status without
a diverse community of contributors but, pending resolution of the CDO
issue, apparently ready for a 1.0 release.
I can't say that I know where Dave's
criteria for a 1.0 release come from. While we have a fairly precise definition
of what it takes for a project to move out of Incubation into Active status
 I don't think we have anything similar for a 1.0 release, do we?
The key thing here is that the status
of a project is meant to be representative of how the project operates,
whether it has a good methodology, test suites, etc, independently of the
maturity of the software being developed. One key criteria for moving out
of incubation is to have a diversity of contributors. In Iroha's request
to move out of incubation  it was stated that this was the case but
that no longer seems to be true.
It's important to remember that we have
agreed that in some cases we might allow for a project to have a 1.0 release
(aka First Major Release) while still being in Incubation. 
On the face of today's situation, it
would seem that the right thing to do is indeed to move the project back
into Incubation - even though that's not a transition we had anticipated
in the Project Lifecycle  - and allow for the release of Iroha 1.0.
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain &
Web Open Technologies - IBM
Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>,
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
03/15/2019 05:18 AM
TSC] Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow
Here's my 2p on this:
I think the "status" of a project (e.g. "inactive",
"incubation", "active", etc) is about the status of
the community. A project in the incubation phase is one that has a small
core of developers working on a minimum viable product. Typically this
is a group of students at the same university or a group of employees at
the same company. Moving from incubation to active happens when the project's
community outgrows that initial core group and has enough critical mass
that the original creators could leave the project and it would keep going.
The authorization to release a 1.0 major release is based
on all of the technical aspects of the project. Off the top of my head,
that list includes the CII badge, public code repo, public mailing list,
some form of CI/CD, public bug tracker, public roadmap, an outside security
audit, and some form of change management system (e.g. 2+2 reviews) full
DCO compliance, training/educational materials for bootcamps and webinars
as well as online documentation.
By applying these standards, I think the appropriate position
for the Iroha project is to be in "incubation" but to approve
a 1.0. I think Chris demonstrated that the contributions are still 99.9%
Soramitsu. I would push back a little and also look for the stats over
the last quarter and last two quarters as a more accurate measure of their
community diversification. I agree with Chris that a plan is good but actually
diversification should be demonstrated.
I also believe that the Iroha team has met all of the
technical standards for a 1.0. The code base is solid and real projects
are being built.
If we flag Iroha as in "incubation" while releasing
a 1.0, not only will it more closely reflect reality, but it also mirrors
the status of other Hyperledger projects such as Indy. Indy has been diversifying
their contributor and maintainers considerably over the last few quarters
and is about to move out of incubation even though Indy node is nearing
its 2.0 release.
I disagree that it will harm Iroha diversification efforts
to move back to "incubation" status. What is more important is
to put out a solid 1.0 release and building relationships with people and
organizations that can now take an enterprise-ready Iroha and build things
with it. In many ways, I would expect that most projects will reach 1.0
before they have enough critical mass to move out of incubation. In fact,
I think that the critical mass actually happens as a result of putting
out a solid 1.0.
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:41 AM hmontgomery@...<hmontgomery@...>
Thanks for the suggestion
Vipin. Could we define more rigorous metrics for this (or at least
suggestions, with perhaps some gray area)?
Putting on my Ursa hat, at
some point in the hopefully not too distant future we’ll want to push
forward with these things. Having the knowledge of specific requirements
(and whether we’ve met them or not, or whether it is borderline) would
be immensely useful. Putting on my TSC hat, I really want to avoid
having to repeat this discussion again and again (a la the “improving
the hackfests” discussions over the years), so coming up with something
solid and writing it down is really appealing.
On Behalf Of Vipin Bharathan
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:04 AM
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity
or does diversity follow from 1.0?
As suggested in today's tsc meeting I am raising the question
Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow
Are numbers like the number of lines of code (or equivalent
measures) from companies available at time of 1.0 (in active) available
for other frameworks that already passed this milestone?
Another interesting statistic would be increase in contributor
diversity SINCE 1.0.
Just to ensure that criteria are applied fairly for all
projects in 1.0. And to see whether adoption is linked to 1.0 announcement.
Please put this on next week's agenda.
Also added as comment on the Agenda.