Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Fwd: TSC Voting Discussion Today
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
We are aware of what the charter says regarding the definition of "Active Contributor". Like you mention, it says anyone who contributes code, documentation or other artifacts to the HLP Codebase in the last twelve months.
The main thing to note is the spirit of this is to have active technical contributors be the voting body. Active in the sense of having contributed in the last 12 months.
HLP Codebase is not conclusively defined, it has been interpreted as github.
There are plenty of technical artefacts that are not in git hub. a.None of the WG outputs which are technical in nature are in github. b. None of the wiki entries that are technical in nature are in github. This is what the debate is all about.
What is "active" is clear. Now what is "contribution", that is open to interpretation. Documents from working groups (including highly technical write ups) are in google docs, for ease of collaboration. There are items in the wiki contributed by people to either advance technical understanding of the platform or analysis or critiques of the solutions. All of these are technical contributions to the HLP. How do we include these contributors in the voting pool while keeping to the spirit of the charter?
I believe it is possible to do this without too much gymnastics and lawyerly wrangling by being generous in the definition of HLP codebase, to include google docs and the wiki. Absent this, to take a longer path, we can create repositories for each WG and check in the documents and have each person who contributed to the docs(evidenced by the revision history of the doc) and wishes to vote, touch the doc.
In addition, we have issues like the ones brought up by Mic Bowman, where he creates algorithms/other artefacts and other people check them in for him since he works for a large organisation like Intel. This is due to the disconnect between traditional open-source where there are a multitude of independent actors and the current manifestation where even big enterprises like IBM, Intel are working on open source in a collective way. I cannot think of an easy solution for this.
The matter of Sybil voting is a totally different subject. Setting a low bar (checked in a single character change to a comment for example) for eligibility for inclusion in the voting pool always invites the possibility of Sybil, there are other forms of hijack of the elections that are not Sybil in the true sense of the word not covered here as well.
Nowhere in the charter does it mention that there would be an easy and automated way to determine the voting pool. The manipulation and or restriction of voting pools has been historically used to misalign the governance of elected bodies both large and small; hence, getting this right is important.
Hope this throws more light than heat on the subject,
On Jul 13, 2017 10:12 PM, "Donald Liu via hyperledger-tsc" <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote: