Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
> +1. Didn't Silas get elected as a people's representative or something? Or am I making this up?
> Silas for the people, 2020!
Ha. I'm thinking of taking a run for British PM, populist demagoguery is in right now.
> This goes back to the idea that only code contributions matter
Not the intention of the suggestion, just that the code repos be the canonical source of truth for such things, the credits would just be a log stored there. I agree it could be a burden to maintain but then so are changelogs. For that matter, maybe adding credits with the changelog would be a better place to do it rather than introducing another thing. The point is to provide a canonical location for providing credit to contributions that are not code, have it defined by project maintainers, and keep it easy to harvest when generating the electoral roll. Just an idea I haven't thought through the implications thoroughly.
> No, let's not broaden it. Let's not try and lessen the value of the hard work done by developers. Code contributions are what moves the projects forward.
I think I conditionally agree with this. It's not that I would want to devalue non-code contributions, but if Hyperledger is an organisation for implementations _not_ a standards or research organisation then I think it is a reasonable (if imperfect) indicator of the practical value of non-code contributions if there is evidence for them in the form of some checked-in artefact. If there is some serious cross-project technical work embedded on the wiki then I can see the unfairness of it not being considered a contribution, but on the other hand I think a wiki 'touch' is too low a bar. At least with a PR it has been accepted by a maintainer. That said I have received a number of really trivial text corrections of very low value which I suspect may have been to gain classification as a contributor or possibly just contribution farming for CV purposes... Not sure what the right answer is here.
> Should all paying members also have some small voting opportunity in addition to code contributors.
Not at all keen on deliberately building a plutocracy. People are willing to make out-sized contributions because Hyperledger just about manages to be a grass-roots open source engineering organisation. If it was so explicitly 'run by the money' this would put me and many contributors I know off Hyperledger.
> Its their money that fuels some of the work.
Not really. Hyperledger tries to act as catalyst but they don't buy my dinner, that would be my employer. Members already get benefit from the access to events, developers, information, the free software itself.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Mohan Venkataraman <mohan.venkataraman@...> wrote: