That is correct, Arnaud.
The board is also looking into how to better guide the SIG process so that it is supporting the projects. I expect we’ll have an update on that next quarter.
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 9:54 AM
To: Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM
From: "Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date: 08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by: tsc@...
As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.
SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter
touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.
Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.
To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may
compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.
In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)
We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing
diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.