Brian wrote: "Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following

Brian Thanks for the clear and concise descriptions. I know that sometimes the lines get blurred a bit, but its good to see things spelled out clearly. Would it possible to share the SIG Update slide

I also want to highlight this link: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/TSC+Election+2019. And believe most working group/team members are project contributor at the same time. Thanks! -- Best

Hi, Thanks to Brian for bringing the charter into the discussion. I had forgotten about this fragment which was used to add WG participants into the electorate, all those years ago. Brian's quote from

Just to reiterate as SIGs are under the gov board right now, there is an open action within the board to define more prescriptive practices. I hope that the outcome will be that the sigs produce

On 8/15/19 11:40 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote: It was something we've worked out with SIG chairs when transitioning from TSC oversight to GB/HL staff oversight; and yes, not

Hi Brian, Thanks for the response. I’m preparing a post on WGs that I’ll make later today on the wiki that should hopefully address the WG concerns here. I like your description of the

Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email: On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote: I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one

SIGs aren't "represented on the TSC", but nor are Working Groups or any particular projects. This isn't a House of Representatives nor a Senate. TSC members are elected by voters

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for the clarification, and sorry I misinterpreted your original emails. Your argument makes complete sense. Do you think we should roll the SIG status into the discussion

The expanded internship/mentorship program this year has seen tremendous contributions from the mentees and mentors. You can learn more about their work by: reading about the 17 project goals,

Thanks for this interestinginfo but to be clear, I for one never said that SIGs aren't doing any technicalwork. My only point is that SIGs don't report to the TSC. And until thischanges, I think it'd

Hi Arnaud, This is a little bit orthogonal to what you and Vipin are discussing, but it’s still relevant, so I’ll mention it here. I think a lot of people are, in fact, using SIGs for

Hi Vipin, The facts arethat while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and reportto them, the SIGs don't. My point is thatif the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be

Arnaud, Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not

Vipin, I'm sorry if myemail made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but,I don't share your point of view and my point remains. Regards. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical

Arnaud, I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote 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

Another solution, which would scale better with a larger TSC, is to do voting async on the mailing list. -Shawn

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. Regards,

The problem is thatSIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems oddto have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with. Am I the onlyone to feel that