toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think there may be gap in understanding between those who were part of the early formation discussions and those who have joined the public conversations after the launch. Prior to launch there was discussion of the scope for Hyperledger amongst the companies who worked on the formation.
There may be some “catching up” that group needs to do explaining the scope they were thinking of to the broader community. The attached diagram I believe captures the final draft that was discussed from a scope perspective - maybe this would be a helpful topic to start with today prior to jumping into the proposal?
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
_______________________________________________hyperledger-tsc mailing listhyperledger-tsc@...https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
Before engaging in a consolidation project, I think it would be helpful to better define the overall goals. It is difficult to assess the merits of a design without the context of the problems it is intended to solve.
I propose that we first define objectives of the system. This needn’t be a document heavy DODAF-style requirements process. But completely forgoing such a process seems to make our decisions arbitrary.
Ultimately the success of this project will hinge on whether the software solves real problems for which there isn’t already a satisfactory solution. In particular my mind goes to distinctions between a distributed ledger and a replicated database before even getting to specialized features of transaction types. But rather than focus on that exclusively or attempt to list all possible objectives here, I will instead suggest that the first ‘sprint’ of the group be to define high-level objectives.
With those objectives defined we can then assess an architecture that selects components from the pool of contributions or creates new ones accordingly.
IBM and Digital Assets would like to jointly submit the following proposal for discussion on this Thursday's TSC call.