|
Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!
Hi Todd,
First, let me express congratulations
to the newly elected TSC, particularly the new members who will
bring fresh energy and perspectives to our conversations. You are
the heart of the technical credibility of this project, and I
could not be happier to see it in such good hands. (apologies for
the delay, I've been traveling)
Todd: thank you for expression of
concerns that no doubt are latent on other people's minds. I am
sure they are also on the minds of each of the TSC members, too.
We have been very careful at
Hyperledger to separate out the sponsoring-member-consortium layer
from the developer-driven product and technical layer. The former
is intended to run very much like any ordinary consortium would;
the latter, like any well functioning open source project. I may
be projecting from my experience with Apache, and perhaps
over-assuming that the following is obvious, but I always felt
it's been clear that developers are expected to participate and
contribute as individuals first, and as employees second. For
example:
* If a maintainer on a project, or a
member of the TSC, changes employers, they do not lose their
status; their "seat" is not conferred to someone else from the
same employer, they keep it wherever they go.
* If a developer is asked by their
employer to submit code that the developer does not believe is the
right thing to do, the developer should not submit that code. In
no case is "we were asked to do it this way" acceptable as a
rationale for submitting or accepting a pull request or other
technical decision, and they can ask us (HL staff) to delicately
intervene if necessary.
* While we (Hyperledger staff)
encourage companies to commit their developers to projects, and
argue that they'll realize benefit from doing so, we constantly
warn them that the public processes must rule the day; that
project proposals, pull requests, even discussions will go
whatever way the developer community decides it should, no matter
how unfair or subject that may feel. We also make it clear that a
company's sponsoring membership in Hyperledger has no bearing on
their technical contributions; and that conversely, non-member
companies can realize the full benefit of using and contributing
to Hyperledger projects. We have several companies who contribute
major amounts of code, and it's running code that usually dictates
what happens (the do-ocracy). Of course this swings both ways -
it would be inappropriate for us to change the TSC election
outcome because it didn't look the way we think it should.
Obviously, developers may feel pressure
from their employers, and some will be able to push back but
others won't feel so empowered. The market for talent in this
space is so hot, and the profile accrued to TSC members and
project maintainers so high, that job security is likely not the
overwhelming issue. Others will act out of loyalty to their
employers. However, this community is capable of watching for,
and calling out, behavior they feel might cross that line. And we
as HL staff have given feedback privately when we've seen that
too.
By any metric, to date, IBM's technical
contributions to Hyperledger have been substantial, and more than
any other company. They deserve credit for that. Early on, that
contribution level was so high that it led to public perception
issues of "control", and a sense that technical decisions were
being made on white boards and phone calls offline rather than
online. I won't speak for them, but it was made clear to us that
IBM did not want that outcome - they brought Fabric to Hyperledger
to get developer leverage, so that their headcount would be
complemented by the efforts of many others. And, they knew it was
essential that Fabric not be a single-vendor product, but an
industry movement. So we worked with them on both the technical
process issues, and the public perception issues, and I believe
these are in the past. They no longer are more than half the
contributions into Fabric, as per Chris Ferris's numbers. There
are many other projects beyond Fabric in Hyperledger, and IBM has
supported those, boosting Indy and Sawtooth and now even welcoming
Besu. Perhaps this is one reason the other electors felt
comfortable voting for the IBM-employed candidates.
Now that every major public cloud
provider offers a managed Fabric as a service, and those companies
are now getting commercial traction, we expect those other
companies to increase their investments into Fabric, entirely out
of self-interest. That will, no doubt, also increase the
representation from those companies in the maintainer community in
Fabric, into other Hyperledger projects, and in the next TSC
election.
But all that said, there was talk about
increasing the size of the TSC, to increase the prospect that more
projects at Hyperledger will see one of their maintainers onboard,
and to account for the growing developer community. I think that
would address both the perception of an issue here, and any actual
attempt by a single vendor to exert "control" over their employees
who become TSC members. The new TSC can discuss this. They could
decide to ask the Governing Board to adjust the Hyperledger bylaws
to increase the size of the TSC for the next election. They could
also ask the Governing Board to approve a one-time add of a set of
new TSC members, so that this greater representation can happen in
the current TSC term. I think there are a lot of great reasons
for either approach.
Again, I'm excited by the new TSC.
There's a lot of new hard work to do together!
Hope this helps,
Brian
On 9/6/19 3:04 PM, Todd Little wrote:
Hi TSC and Hyperledger in general,
While I don't doubt the results of the election, I do have to
question whether this is the sort of outcome Hyperledger desires.
For projects to exit incubation they must exhibit diversity of
contributions such that a project is not "controlled" by a single
organization. Why would the TSC find that TSC membership adheres
to a lesser standard? It is very clear that IBM now controls the
TSC and is that the direction Hyperledger wants to take?
-tl
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|
|
Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!
Hi TSC and Hyperledger in general,
While I don't doubt the results of the election, I do have to
question whether this is the sort of outcome Hyperledger desires.
For projects to exit incubation they must exhibit diversity of
contributions such that a project is not "controlled" by a single
organization. Why would the TSC find that TSC membership adheres to
a lesser standard? It is very clear that IBM now controls the TSC
and is that the direction Hyperledger wants to take?
-tl
|
|
|
Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
Update complete.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 9/6/19 9:37 AM, Tim Johnson wrote: What: Upgrade Hyperledger wiki/wiki2 to latest version due to new exploit
When: Fri Sept 6 15:00 EST
How long: 1hr
Tim
|
|
|
Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
What: Upgrade Hyperledger wiki/wiki2 to latest version due to new exploit
When: Fri Sept 6 15:00 EST
How long: 1hr
Tim
|
|
|
security vuln reporting policy in GH
Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
I know that GH has been reporting vulnerabilities in dependencies for a while now, but I see that they have also added the ability to publish your security vulnerability reporting process via the GH repository.
Seems to me that it would be A Good Thing (tm) to update all the Hyperledger repos with our process, with each project adding in the set of releases covered by the policy.
Thoughts?
Chris
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Hello Mr. RGB, Hope you had a nice vacation. Agree that we need to dig into the permissioned/permissionless integration subject. Jonathan L may be the most knowledgeable here since his Unbounded Network houses both permissioned and permissionless dlts and he is a sponsor of the Besu project. Maybe we could start with challenges/obstacles in Unbounded around the boundary of permissioned and permissionless. Knowing Jonathan he is bound(sic) to say none😇😇 .... Best, Vipin
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Jonathan, Silas, all,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments to my post. Sorry for the (very) slow reply – I was on holiday.
I know the immediate forcing function (the Besu approval discussion) has passed but I do remain interested in the permissioned/permissionless integration discussion. But perhaps the approach in
my original email, where I tried to intuit legitimate use-cases from first principles, was the wrong approach – maybe we just need to observe what people actually do, what happens and what works. I think it might have been Vipin who rightly called me out
over this. Anyway - I don’t want to beat a dead horse so I’ll step back from this for now in this forum whilst the hard work of bringing the new code base and identifying synergies with the other projects, etc., kicks off.
Cheers,
Richard
Richard G Brown | R3. | Chief Technology Officer
2 London Wall Place | Floor 12 | London | EC2Y 5AU
M: +44 7764 666821 | T: @gendal
richard@... . www.r3.com
... "It is ashame that we meet [ONLY] in other events, no the Hyperledger ones anymore", I meant.
(Typing from and old and dusty mobile)
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:26 AM, Jonathan Levi (HACERA)
While I am obviously in support of this proposal, being the first sponsor in the list after Consensys, I have had a LOT of conversations about this "move" and I hope tgat today
Goes Well * (defined below).
Personally, I started to help, code and build one of the best Permissioned Blockchain framework (Fabric) AFTER working on Ethereum in 2015 and Bitcoin years before that. At first,
I received a lot of criticism from some in the Ethereum community, while I kept on helping Ethereum, with advise, participating (and winning) in some impactful hackathons (Interoperability, Sharing, Confidentiality, Scaling) and help judge in many others.
So I am glad that ConsenSys invested in a permissioned version (in addition to the amazing work that the Quorum team is constantly delivering).
Professionally, I would really like the TSC to think about "where do we go from here".
I’m joining the disagreement with Vipin, I didn’t like the tone nor the accusations/blaming that people are not judging this proposal technically, or that people hold Besu to
a different standard. I also don't think that this is "diverse" as the project and code is provided by a single vendor (right now). Last, it is not clear at this point that this will get Hyperledger close to the EEA, as the EEA is set on supporting Quorum.
With the specification effort (version 4 will be released during Ethereum DevCon 5), and they are welcoming other implementations, but to jump and declare "success" just by having one more project in Hyperledger, does not make us all friends. I am looking
for a much more collaboration than competition here.
I raised the question of whether we would like all projects to fit well in Hyperledger and we have a lot of discussions around "who is going to do all this or that". Shawn and
Chris addressed it, as indeed "the code won't write itself", and I agree with Arnaud, we are young and have to continue redefine and adapt.
I would like to quicky define what I mean by hoping that the vote today "Goes Well". I think we made a big mistake to not prevent the in-fighting in Hyperledger. Fabric was an
investment of many many man years, and without breaching too many NDAs, it was worth many 100s of millions of dollars, especially in 2017.
How did we get there? TOGETHER.
In 2016 we had R3 who worked night and day so close to banking and the financial sector who kept on feeding us with super valuable feedback, Digital Asset - constantly provided
us with requirements and I will never forget how much Intel (Mic B and others) set down with the Fabric team and literally worked out with the Fabric leading maintainers some major issues that we missed at the time with the genesis block with channels.
In 2018, we have lost a.lot of market momentum due to all these fights over Grid, over the pluggable consensus (I would have LOVED) to have PoET in Fabric, which I believe would
have helped Intel a lot, given the fact that we already have 7 cloud providers who invested so much in having Fabric support. I think the fights and fragmentation is not helpful and a lot of innovation in 2018 is happening elsewhere.
Trying to remedy and bridge, HACERA and IBM have representatives (soon to be maintainers, more likely) of Hyperledger Transact, so that we can bridge the Fabric-Sawtooth gap when
it comes to contracts and I would have loved it if Sabres (the WASM work) will be reusable outside Sawtooth, and HACERA can probably help with it this year.
What am I asking? I want people to be very honest with their vote. If we don't want to work with Ethereum, Pantheon or Besu - just say so and let's move on.
But if we do, or are willing to try, then let's welcome their code and their team, and work out what we can do together. Again: TOGETHER ;-)
And Richard G. Brown - of course your participation in any of these discussions is highly welcome. It is a shame that we meet in other events, but please do chime in.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 10:00 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
Hi all,
I find myself largely in agreement with the sentiment expressed by Shawn and Chris. I find it rather unfortunate that attempts to understand how Besu will fit in and what its addition means to be
interpreted as a vote against it. I think it is the TSC's job to take a serious look at every proposal and understand what the implications are. These shouldn't necessarily be seen as a pushback as much as an interest in looking after the well being of Hyperledger.
It has been said that we are making new rules as we go and I think that's a fair point but I for one don't think that's really by choice nor a bad thing. Hyperledger is still a very young organization
and it should be expected that it goes through some transformation as it grows. Our charter states that our missing is to "create an enterprise grade, open source distributed ledger framework and code base" [1]. So, as a matter of fact, we've literally been
making new rules all along since we accepted developing in parallel more than one dlt. Why should anyone be then surprised we keep doing so?
Anyway, I trust that with time we will get our act together. I understand the board is looking into updating our charter, which seems to be a good start. What's important to me, in line with what
Chris stated and what I put in my TSC nomination pitch, is that we do a better job at documenting how the different projects compare and relate to one another, so that people in the community out there no longer get utterly confused when they come to our website
in search for where to start they journey.
Cheers.
[1] https://www.hyperledger.org/about/charter
--
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@...>
To: Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...>, "vipinsun@..."
<vipinsun@...>, Silas Davis <silas@...>, "jon.geater@..." <jon.geater@...>,
"tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 08/27/2019 03:14 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Sent by: tsc@...
comments in-lined, below.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:11 AM Shawn Amundson <amundson@...> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:43 AM VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
-
Pluggable consensus has been in active discussion in the Architecture working group. Unfortunately participation in such cross dlt architectural conversations has dropped, at least under the aegis of the AWG. We have had conversations
of how to reboot the WGs and you should join the conversation.
We already have really good pluggable consensus within Hyperledger that supports both voting and lottery style consensus that is very close to being suitable for cross-project use. The next step is packaging
that up into a library that can be reused by the various projects, reconciling the code from the various projects, and refining the rough edges. I think there is substantial interest, but it is a lot of work to accomplish. If the Architecture WG activity in
this area is deep consideration of the pluggable consensus API, with an eye towards documenting potential enhancements, there are certainly maintainers that would be interested in joining and participating.
I would agree with Shawn, here. There could be a bit more alignment, across projects but we do have plug-able consensus. However, I will remind people that code doesn't write itself, and no one ever shipped an architecture diagram/paper
into production. Hyperledger is, all being said, an open source community. I would really love to see people diving in and working out the "how" and then rolling up sleeves to help drive the implementation of their thinking.
-
There has been no support to bring "consistent technical principles". Working Groups and other cross-dlt areas where such work should take place are languishing and there are many actively campaigning against WGs. However this
again has nothing to do with whether we should approve Besu or not.
The presumption that WGs are where "such work should take place" could only hold true if the WGs produce artifacts that can be used as input into project development. I've not seen an active campaign against
WGs, and would love to see useful design documents come out of them.
Agree, no one is campaigning against WGs, per se. The discussion of WGs is more about making WGs *more relevant* to the projects so that the project contributors and maintainers might pay them more attention and participate, meaningfully
to the benefit of the projects and the broader community.
-
HL is unique in its sheltering of multiple DLT solutions, there is no comparable consortium and we are inventing the integrative concepts around such co-opetition. I am also an advocate of a full offering (integrating documentation,
deployment, operational support, simple and intuitive UIs, adherence to regulation demonstrable with security audits, monitoring and self-healing), having had some experience importing dlt solutions into highly regulated enterprises.
To some extent, the question is "What is Hyperledger?" Is Hyperledger an organization like Apache that has many unrelated projects; or, as we have been discussing for the last year, is Hyperledger driving
toward more unification of its technology stack (not by having a single DLT, but rather by having the DLTs have some common code across them). I'm not sure it is mutually exclusive. However, we have had discussions in which some TSC members and maintainers
have favored an approach of more re-usable projects and less (or no) completely new top-level frameworks.
...
-
The arrival of new projects into Hyperledger, especially something backed by large networks who are new to Hyperledger will stimulate work in all areas. When there is competition, people will be forced to improve their offerings
to stay relevant.
But, should the competition be within Hyperledger itself? I'm not convinced that the competition within Hyperledger makes Hyperledger better. Maybe sometimes. I'd definitely like to see more collaboration
across projects than an increase in competition across projects.
...
-
In short, I am against holding Besu to a different standard than the existing platforms in Hyperledger. Let us be consistent. Getting new blood and new ideas into HL will make a difference in existing dlts as well. The new entrants
may revive interest in cross-dlt efforts like the working groups and SIGs.
Every recent project proposal has had to justify itself in relation to other Hyperledger projects. :)
Agreed. I've been struggling with this. I think that there's positive benefit to bringing the Hyperledger and Ethereum communities closer together in the hopes that kumbayah. Though, I don't necessarily think that there will ever
be one DLT to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. What I DO think that Hyperledger needs to sort out is how it positions and promotes its projects. Right now, there is a considerable amount of overlap/redundancy, and it can be difficult at best to
try to articulate to the general public how the projects are differentiated from one another. Further, during any project's life-cycle there's a great deal of effort expended to raise its voice above the din, to get people to kick the tires and maybe get more
interested/invested.
I'm fine if Hyperledger is to become the Apache-for-Enterprise-Blockchain-and-DLTs, but note that Apache marketing is about promoting Apache and the Apache Way, not Hadoop, Kafka, Maven, Tomcat, or OpenWhisk.
Brian and Jessica have a difficult job, just as any parents with multiple offspring. Each child is special yet loved and nurtured equally. When someone asks a parent which child they love more, the correct response is "all of
them". So, what should be the Hyperledger response when asked by press and analysts which of its projects is better, the correct answer needs to be "judge for yourself, we support them all equally". Yet, in this ultra-competitive landscape there is a natural
tendency for press and analysts to look for differentiation, conflict and adoption to inform their audiences (and drive clicks). How do we enable the projects to make their case if they are promoted as equals?
Where am I going with all of this? I think we need to collectively (with the Board and Marketing) address the question that Shawn posed: "What is Hyperledger?". If Hyperledger is indeed to be a "greenhouse" or "umbrella" organization
where open source blockchain/dlt for enterprise is developed - taking its cue from Apache. Then, I think we need to come to terms with two things:
1) what we want to be the "Hyperledger Way", and
2) how projects are marketed
I think there's much to be learned from the success of Apache and Eclipse, both of which are home to hundreds of projects, some overlapping/competing, some collaborative integrate-able components that fit a given framework. It
could be just about creating a "safe place to innovate", as I like to say. It could be about encouraging growth of community(s) around projects. It could be about defining a single compose-able framework for DLTs shepherded by a collection of WGs that do top-down
architecture overseen by the TSC.
However, whatever we choose, we then need to sort out how (or whether) we market the projects via Hyperledger or, allow the projects to manage their own messaging.
-Shawn
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Quite excited to see Besu live. We would be quite interested in following the progress and actively participating in its evolution.
Mohan Venkataraman
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Jonathan, Silas, all,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments to my post. Sorry for the (very) slow reply – I was on holiday.
I know the immediate forcing function (the Besu approval discussion) has passed but I do remain interested in the permissioned/permissionless integration discussion. But perhaps the approach in
my original email, where I tried to intuit legitimate use-cases from first principles, was the wrong approach – maybe we just need to observe what people actually do, what happens and what works. I think it might have been Vipin who rightly called me out
over this. Anyway - I don’t want to beat a dead horse so I’ll step back from this for now in this forum whilst the hard work of bringing the new code base and identifying synergies with the other projects, etc., kicks off.
Cheers,
Richard
Richard G Brown | R3. | Chief Technology Officer
2 London Wall Place | Floor 12 | London | EC2Y 5AU
M: +44 7764 666821 | T: @gendal
richard@... . www.r3.com
... "It is ashame that we meet [ONLY] in other events, no the Hyperledger ones anymore", I meant.
(Typing from and old and dusty mobile)
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:26 AM, Jonathan Levi (HACERA)
While I am obviously in support of this proposal, being the first sponsor in the list after Consensys, I have had a LOT of conversations about this "move" and I hope tgat today
Goes Well * (defined below).
Personally, I started to help, code and build one of the best Permissioned Blockchain framework (Fabric) AFTER working on Ethereum in 2015 and Bitcoin years before that. At first,
I received a lot of criticism from some in the Ethereum community, while I kept on helping Ethereum, with advise, participating (and winning) in some impactful hackathons (Interoperability, Sharing, Confidentiality, Scaling) and help judge in many others.
So I am glad that ConsenSys invested in a permissioned version (in addition to the amazing work that the Quorum team is constantly delivering).
Professionally, I would really like the TSC to think about "where do we go from here".
I’m joining the disagreement with Vipin, I didn’t like the tone nor the accusations/blaming that people are not judging this proposal technically, or that people hold Besu to
a different standard. I also don't think that this is "diverse" as the project and code is provided by a single vendor (right now). Last, it is not clear at this point that this will get Hyperledger close to the EEA, as the EEA is set on supporting Quorum.
With the specification effort (version 4 will be released during Ethereum DevCon 5), and they are welcoming other implementations, but to jump and declare "success" just by having one more project in Hyperledger, does not make us all friends. I am looking
for a much more collaboration than competition here.
I raised the question of whether we would like all projects to fit well in Hyperledger and we have a lot of discussions around "who is going to do all this or that". Shawn and
Chris addressed it, as indeed "the code won't write itself", and I agree with Arnaud, we are young and have to continue redefine and adapt.
I would like to quicky define what I mean by hoping that the vote today "Goes Well". I think we made a big mistake to not prevent the in-fighting in Hyperledger. Fabric was an
investment of many many man years, and without breaching too many NDAs, it was worth many 100s of millions of dollars, especially in 2017.
How did we get there? TOGETHER.
In 2016 we had R3 who worked night and day so close to banking and the financial sector who kept on feeding us with super valuable feedback, Digital Asset - constantly provided
us with requirements and I will never forget how much Intel (Mic B and others) set down with the Fabric team and literally worked out with the Fabric leading maintainers some major issues that we missed at the time with the genesis block with channels.
In 2018, we have lost a.lot of market momentum due to all these fights over Grid, over the pluggable consensus (I would have LOVED) to have PoET in Fabric, which I believe would
have helped Intel a lot, given the fact that we already have 7 cloud providers who invested so much in having Fabric support. I think the fights and fragmentation is not helpful and a lot of innovation in 2018 is happening elsewhere.
Trying to remedy and bridge, HACERA and IBM have representatives (soon to be maintainers, more likely) of Hyperledger Transact, so that we can bridge the Fabric-Sawtooth gap when
it comes to contracts and I would have loved it if Sabres (the WASM work) will be reusable outside Sawtooth, and HACERA can probably help with it this year.
What am I asking? I want people to be very honest with their vote. If we don't want to work with Ethereum, Pantheon or Besu - just say so and let's move on.
But if we do, or are willing to try, then let's welcome their code and their team, and work out what we can do together. Again: TOGETHER ;-)
And Richard G. Brown - of course your participation in any of these discussions is highly welcome. It is a shame that we meet in other events, but please do chime in.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 10:00 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
Hi all,
I find myself largely in agreement with the sentiment expressed by Shawn and Chris. I find it rather unfortunate that attempts to understand how Besu will fit in and what its addition means to be
interpreted as a vote against it. I think it is the TSC's job to take a serious look at every proposal and understand what the implications are. These shouldn't necessarily be seen as a pushback as much as an interest in looking after the well being of Hyperledger.
It has been said that we are making new rules as we go and I think that's a fair point but I for one don't think that's really by choice nor a bad thing. Hyperledger is still a very young organization
and it should be expected that it goes through some transformation as it grows. Our charter states that our missing is to "create an enterprise grade, open source distributed ledger framework and code base" [1]. So, as a matter of fact, we've literally been
making new rules all along since we accepted developing in parallel more than one dlt. Why should anyone be then surprised we keep doing so?
Anyway, I trust that with time we will get our act together. I understand the board is looking into updating our charter, which seems to be a good start. What's important to me, in line with what
Chris stated and what I put in my TSC nomination pitch, is that we do a better job at documenting how the different projects compare and relate to one another, so that people in the community out there no longer get utterly confused when they come to our website
in search for where to start they journey.
Cheers.
[1] https://www.hyperledger.org/about/charter
--
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@...>
To: Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...>, "vipinsun@..."
<vipinsun@...>, Silas Davis <silas@...>, "jon.geater@..." <jon.geater@...>,
"tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 08/27/2019 03:14 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Sent by: tsc@...
comments in-lined, below.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:11 AM Shawn Amundson <amundson@...> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:43 AM VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
-
Pluggable consensus has been in active discussion in the Architecture working group. Unfortunately participation in such cross dlt architectural conversations has dropped, at least under the aegis of the AWG. We have had conversations
of how to reboot the WGs and you should join the conversation.
We already have really good pluggable consensus within Hyperledger that supports both voting and lottery style consensus that is very close to being suitable for cross-project use. The next step is packaging
that up into a library that can be reused by the various projects, reconciling the code from the various projects, and refining the rough edges. I think there is substantial interest, but it is a lot of work to accomplish. If the Architecture WG activity in
this area is deep consideration of the pluggable consensus API, with an eye towards documenting potential enhancements, there are certainly maintainers that would be interested in joining and participating.
I would agree with Shawn, here. There could be a bit more alignment, across projects but we do have plug-able consensus. However, I will remind people that code doesn't write itself, and no one ever shipped an architecture diagram/paper
into production. Hyperledger is, all being said, an open source community. I would really love to see people diving in and working out the "how" and then rolling up sleeves to help drive the implementation of their thinking.
-
There has been no support to bring "consistent technical principles". Working Groups and other cross-dlt areas where such work should take place are languishing and there are many actively campaigning against WGs. However this
again has nothing to do with whether we should approve Besu or not.
The presumption that WGs are where "such work should take place" could only hold true if the WGs produce artifacts that can be used as input into project development. I've not seen an active campaign against
WGs, and would love to see useful design documents come out of them.
Agree, no one is campaigning against WGs, per se. The discussion of WGs is more about making WGs *more relevant* to the projects so that the project contributors and maintainers might pay them more attention and participate, meaningfully
to the benefit of the projects and the broader community.
-
HL is unique in its sheltering of multiple DLT solutions, there is no comparable consortium and we are inventing the integrative concepts around such co-opetition. I am also an advocate of a full offering (integrating documentation,
deployment, operational support, simple and intuitive UIs, adherence to regulation demonstrable with security audits, monitoring and self-healing), having had some experience importing dlt solutions into highly regulated enterprises.
To some extent, the question is "What is Hyperledger?" Is Hyperledger an organization like Apache that has many unrelated projects; or, as we have been discussing for the last year, is Hyperledger driving
toward more unification of its technology stack (not by having a single DLT, but rather by having the DLTs have some common code across them). I'm not sure it is mutually exclusive. However, we have had discussions in which some TSC members and maintainers
have favored an approach of more re-usable projects and less (or no) completely new top-level frameworks.
...
-
The arrival of new projects into Hyperledger, especially something backed by large networks who are new to Hyperledger will stimulate work in all areas. When there is competition, people will be forced to improve their offerings
to stay relevant.
But, should the competition be within Hyperledger itself? I'm not convinced that the competition within Hyperledger makes Hyperledger better. Maybe sometimes. I'd definitely like to see more collaboration
across projects than an increase in competition across projects.
...
-
In short, I am against holding Besu to a different standard than the existing platforms in Hyperledger. Let us be consistent. Getting new blood and new ideas into HL will make a difference in existing dlts as well. The new entrants
may revive interest in cross-dlt efforts like the working groups and SIGs.
Every recent project proposal has had to justify itself in relation to other Hyperledger projects. :)
Agreed. I've been struggling with this. I think that there's positive benefit to bringing the Hyperledger and Ethereum communities closer together in the hopes that kumbayah. Though, I don't necessarily think that there will ever
be one DLT to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. What I DO think that Hyperledger needs to sort out is how it positions and promotes its projects. Right now, there is a considerable amount of overlap/redundancy, and it can be difficult at best to
try to articulate to the general public how the projects are differentiated from one another. Further, during any project's life-cycle there's a great deal of effort expended to raise its voice above the din, to get people to kick the tires and maybe get more
interested/invested.
I'm fine if Hyperledger is to become the Apache-for-Enterprise-Blockchain-and-DLTs, but note that Apache marketing is about promoting Apache and the Apache Way, not Hadoop, Kafka, Maven, Tomcat, or OpenWhisk.
Brian and Jessica have a difficult job, just as any parents with multiple offspring. Each child is special yet loved and nurtured equally. When someone asks a parent which child they love more, the correct response is "all of
them". So, what should be the Hyperledger response when asked by press and analysts which of its projects is better, the correct answer needs to be "judge for yourself, we support them all equally". Yet, in this ultra-competitive landscape there is a natural
tendency for press and analysts to look for differentiation, conflict and adoption to inform their audiences (and drive clicks). How do we enable the projects to make their case if they are promoted as equals?
Where am I going with all of this? I think we need to collectively (with the Board and Marketing) address the question that Shawn posed: "What is Hyperledger?". If Hyperledger is indeed to be a "greenhouse" or "umbrella" organization
where open source blockchain/dlt for enterprise is developed - taking its cue from Apache. Then, I think we need to come to terms with two things:
1) what we want to be the "Hyperledger Way", and
2) how projects are marketed
I think there's much to be learned from the success of Apache and Eclipse, both of which are home to hundreds of projects, some overlapping/competing, some collaborative integrate-able components that fit a given framework. It
could be just about creating a "safe place to innovate", as I like to say. It could be about encouraging growth of community(s) around projects. It could be about defining a single compose-able framework for DLTs shepherded by a collection of WGs that do top-down
architecture overseen by the TSC.
However, whatever we choose, we then need to sort out how (or whether) we market the projects via Hyperledger or, allow the projects to manage their own messaging.
-Shawn
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Richard G Brown (R3) <richard@...>
Jonathan, Silas, all,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments to my post. Sorry for the (very) slow reply – I was on holiday.
I know the immediate forcing function (the Besu approval discussion) has passed but I do remain interested in the permissioned/permissionless integration discussion. But perhaps the approach in
my original email, where I tried to intuit legitimate use-cases from first principles, was the wrong approach – maybe we just need to observe what people actually do, what happens and what works. I think it might have been Vipin who rightly called me out
over this. Anyway - I don’t want to beat a dead horse so I’ll step back from this for now in this forum whilst the hard work of bringing the new code base and identifying synergies with the other projects, etc., kicks off.
Cheers,
Richard
Richard G Brown | R3. | Chief Technology Officer
2 London Wall Place | Floor 12 | London | EC2Y 5AU
M: +44 7764 666821 | T: @gendal
richard@... . www.r3.com
From: Jonathan Levi <jonathan@...>
Reply to: "jonathan@..." <jonathan@...>
Date: Thursday, 29 August 2019 at 15:43
To: "jonathan@..." <jonathan@...>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>, Richard Brown <richard@...>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>, Gari Singh <gari.r.singh@...>
Cc: Jonathan Levi <jonathan@...>, Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
... "It is ashame that we meet [ONLY] in other events, no the Hyperledger ones anymore", I meant.
(Typing from and old and dusty mobile)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:26 AM, Jonathan Levi (HACERA)
While I am obviously in support of this proposal, being the first sponsor in the list after Consensys, I have had a LOT of conversations about this "move" and I hope tgat today
Goes Well * (defined below).
Personally, I started to help, code and build one of the best Permissioned Blockchain framework (Fabric) AFTER working on Ethereum in 2015 and Bitcoin years before that. At first,
I received a lot of criticism from some in the Ethereum community, while I kept on helping Ethereum, with advise, participating (and winning) in some impactful hackathons (Interoperability, Sharing, Confidentiality, Scaling) and help judge in many others.
So I am glad that ConsenSys invested in a permissioned version (in addition to the amazing work that the Quorum team is constantly delivering).
Professionally, I would really like the TSC to think about "where do we go from here".
I’m joining the disagreement with Vipin, I didn’t like the tone nor the accusations/blaming that people are not judging this proposal technically, or that people hold Besu to
a different standard. I also don't think that this is "diverse" as the project and code is provided by a single vendor (right now). Last, it is not clear at this point that this will get Hyperledger close to the EEA, as the EEA is set on supporting Quorum.
With the specification effort (version 4 will be released during Ethereum DevCon 5), and they are welcoming other implementations, but to jump and declare "success" just by having one more project in Hyperledger, does not make us all friends. I am looking
for a much more collaboration than competition here.
I raised the question of whether we would like all projects to fit well in Hyperledger and we have a lot of discussions around "who is going to do all this or that". Shawn and
Chris addressed it, as indeed "the code won't write itself", and I agree with Arnaud, we are young and have to continue redefine and adapt.
I would like to quicky define what I mean by hoping that the vote today "Goes Well". I think we made a big mistake to not prevent the in-fighting in Hyperledger. Fabric was an
investment of many many man years, and without breaching too many NDAs, it was worth many 100s of millions of dollars, especially in 2017.
How did we get there? TOGETHER.
In 2016 we had R3 who worked night and day so close to banking and the financial sector who kept on feeding us with super valuable feedback, Digital Asset - constantly provided
us with requirements and I will never forget how much Intel (Mic B and others) set down with the Fabric team and literally worked out with the Fabric leading maintainers some major issues that we missed at the time with the genesis block with channels.
In 2018, we have lost a.lot of market momentum due to all these fights over Grid, over the pluggable consensus (I would have LOVED) to have PoET in Fabric, which I believe would
have helped Intel a lot, given the fact that we already have 7 cloud providers who invested so much in having Fabric support. I think the fights and fragmentation is not helpful and a lot of innovation in 2018 is happening elsewhere.
Trying to remedy and bridge, HACERA and IBM have representatives (soon to be maintainers, more likely) of Hyperledger Transact, so that we can bridge the Fabric-Sawtooth gap when
it comes to contracts and I would have loved it if Sabres (the WASM work) will be reusable outside Sawtooth, and HACERA can probably help with it this year.
What am I asking? I want people to be very honest with their vote. If we don't want to work with Ethereum, Pantheon or Besu - just say so and let's move on.
But if we do, or are willing to try, then let's welcome their code and their team, and work out what we can do together. Again: TOGETHER ;-)
And Richard G. Brown - of course your participation in any of these discussions is highly welcome. It is a shame that we meet in other events, but please do chime in.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 10:00 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
Hi all,
I find myself largely in agreement with the sentiment expressed by Shawn and Chris. I find it rather unfortunate that attempts to understand how Besu will fit in and what its addition means to be
interpreted as a vote against it. I think it is the TSC's job to take a serious look at every proposal and understand what the implications are. These shouldn't necessarily be seen as a pushback as much as an interest in looking after the well being of Hyperledger.
It has been said that we are making new rules as we go and I think that's a fair point but I for one don't think that's really by choice nor a bad thing. Hyperledger is still a very young organization
and it should be expected that it goes through some transformation as it grows. Our charter states that our missing is to "create an enterprise grade, open source distributed ledger framework and code base" [1]. So, as a matter of fact, we've literally been
making new rules all along since we accepted developing in parallel more than one dlt. Why should anyone be then surprised we keep doing so?
Anyway, I trust that with time we will get our act together. I understand the board is looking into updating our charter, which seems to be a good start. What's important to me, in line with what
Chris stated and what I put in my TSC nomination pitch, is that we do a better job at documenting how the different projects compare and relate to one another, so that people in the community out there no longer get utterly confused when they come to our website
in search for where to start they journey.
Cheers.
[1] https://www.hyperledger.org/about/charter
--
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@...>
To: Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...>, "vipinsun@..."
<vipinsun@...>, Silas Davis <silas@...>, "jon.geater@..." <jon.geater@...>,
"tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 08/27/2019 03:14 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Sent by: tsc@...
comments in-lined, below.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:11 AM Shawn Amundson <amundson@...> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:43 AM VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
-
Pluggable consensus has been in active discussion in the Architecture working group. Unfortunately participation in such cross dlt architectural conversations has dropped, at least under the aegis of the AWG. We have had conversations
of how to reboot the WGs and you should join the conversation.
We already have really good pluggable consensus within Hyperledger that supports both voting and lottery style consensus that is very close to being suitable for cross-project use. The next step is packaging
that up into a library that can be reused by the various projects, reconciling the code from the various projects, and refining the rough edges. I think there is substantial interest, but it is a lot of work to accomplish. If the Architecture WG activity in
this area is deep consideration of the pluggable consensus API, with an eye towards documenting potential enhancements, there are certainly maintainers that would be interested in joining and participating.
I would agree with Shawn, here. There could be a bit more alignment, across projects but we do have plug-able consensus. However, I will remind people that code doesn't write itself, and no one ever shipped an architecture diagram/paper
into production. Hyperledger is, all being said, an open source community. I would really love to see people diving in and working out the "how" and then rolling up sleeves to help drive the implementation of their thinking.
-
There has been no support to bring "consistent technical principles". Working Groups and other cross-dlt areas where such work should take place are languishing and there are many actively campaigning against WGs. However this
again has nothing to do with whether we should approve Besu or not.
The presumption that WGs are where "such work should take place" could only hold true if the WGs produce artifacts that can be used as input into project development. I've not seen an active campaign against
WGs, and would love to see useful design documents come out of them.
Agree, no one is campaigning against WGs, per se. The discussion of WGs is more about making WGs *more relevant* to the projects so that the project contributors and maintainers might pay them more attention and participate, meaningfully
to the benefit of the projects and the broader community.
-
HL is unique in its sheltering of multiple DLT solutions, there is no comparable consortium and we are inventing the integrative concepts around such co-opetition. I am also an advocate of a full offering (integrating documentation,
deployment, operational support, simple and intuitive UIs, adherence to regulation demonstrable with security audits, monitoring and self-healing), having had some experience importing dlt solutions into highly regulated enterprises.
To some extent, the question is "What is Hyperledger?" Is Hyperledger an organization like Apache that has many unrelated projects; or, as we have been discussing for the last year, is Hyperledger driving
toward more unification of its technology stack (not by having a single DLT, but rather by having the DLTs have some common code across them). I'm not sure it is mutually exclusive. However, we have had discussions in which some TSC members and maintainers
have favored an approach of more re-usable projects and less (or no) completely new top-level frameworks.
...
-
The arrival of new projects into Hyperledger, especially something backed by large networks who are new to Hyperledger will stimulate work in all areas. When there is competition, people will be forced to improve their offerings
to stay relevant.
But, should the competition be within Hyperledger itself? I'm not convinced that the competition within Hyperledger makes Hyperledger better. Maybe sometimes. I'd definitely like to see more collaboration
across projects than an increase in competition across projects.
...
-
In short, I am against holding Besu to a different standard than the existing platforms in Hyperledger. Let us be consistent. Getting new blood and new ideas into HL will make a difference in existing dlts as well. The new entrants
may revive interest in cross-dlt efforts like the working groups and SIGs.
Every recent project proposal has had to justify itself in relation to other Hyperledger projects. :)
Agreed. I've been struggling with this. I think that there's positive benefit to bringing the Hyperledger and Ethereum communities closer together in the hopes that kumbayah. Though, I don't necessarily think that there will ever
be one DLT to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. What I DO think that Hyperledger needs to sort out is how it positions and promotes its projects. Right now, there is a considerable amount of overlap/redundancy, and it can be difficult at best to
try to articulate to the general public how the projects are differentiated from one another. Further, during any project's life-cycle there's a great deal of effort expended to raise its voice above the din, to get people to kick the tires and maybe get more
interested/invested.
I'm fine if Hyperledger is to become the Apache-for-Enterprise-Blockchain-and-DLTs, but note that Apache marketing is about promoting Apache and the Apache Way, not Hadoop, Kafka, Maven, Tomcat, or OpenWhisk.
Brian and Jessica have a difficult job, just as any parents with multiple offspring. Each child is special yet loved and nurtured equally. When someone asks a parent which child they love more, the correct response is "all of
them". So, what should be the Hyperledger response when asked by press and analysts which of its projects is better, the correct answer needs to be "judge for yourself, we support them all equally". Yet, in this ultra-competitive landscape there is a natural
tendency for press and analysts to look for differentiation, conflict and adoption to inform their audiences (and drive clicks). How do we enable the projects to make their case if they are promoted as equals?
Where am I going with all of this? I think we need to collectively (with the Board and Marketing) address the question that Shawn posed: "What is Hyperledger?". If Hyperledger is indeed to be a "greenhouse" or "umbrella" organization
where open source blockchain/dlt for enterprise is developed - taking its cue from Apache. Then, I think we need to come to terms with two things:
1) what we want to be the "Hyperledger Way", and
2) how projects are marketed
I think there's much to be learned from the success of Apache and Eclipse, both of which are home to hundreds of projects, some overlapping/competing, some collaborative integrate-able components that fit a given framework. It
could be just about creating a "safe place to innovate", as I like to say. It could be about encouraging growth of community(s) around projects. It could be about defining a single compose-able framework for DLTs shepherded by a collection of WGs that do top-down
architecture overseen by the TSC.
However, whatever we choose, we then need to sort out how (or whether) we market the projects via Hyperledger or, allow the projects to manage their own messaging.
-Shawn
|
|
|
2019-09-05 TSC meeting minutes are up
Dave Huseby <dhuseby@...>
|
|
|
Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!
Ry Jones
Angelo De Caro
Arnaud J Le Hors
Christopher Ferris
Dan Middleton
Gari Singh
Hart Montgomery
Mark Wagner
Nathan George
Swetha Repakula
Tracy Kuhrt
Troy Ronda
-- Ry Jones Community Architect, Hyperledger
|
|
|
Re: FW: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019
#tsc-wg-update
#cal-notice
Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
Typo Sept 5 not 6.
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Dan Middleton <dan.middleton@...>
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:50 PM
To: Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Cc: "Community-architects@..." <Community-architects@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] FW: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019 #cal-notice
Hi,
Thanks for the update. I guess there may be a paste artifact in the reminder notification.
The TSC is indeed scheduled to meet today Sept 5. Generally we review these updates offline and if there is not sufficient time in the meeting we may forego verbal review.
Also typically that offline review happens in the days leading up to the meeting. As such, it’s unlikely that it will be widely reviewed by the TSC before today’s meeting.
Thanks,
Dan
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:12 PM
To: "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Cc: "Community-architects@..." <Community-architects@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] FW: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019 #cal-notice
Hi everybody,
I received this notification about the SC WG’s report presentation which apart from the wrong title (SC WG China??) it mentions that the presentation to the TSC
is on 6 September. Is this right? Because as far as I know the TSC’s meeting is today. Please confirm which is the right day/time. You can find the report here
https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/2019+Q2+Smart+Contracts+WG
Thank you,
Sofia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Terzi | Blockchain Solutions Architect MSc.
[Email] <sterzi@...>
[CERTH-ITI] <https://www.iti.gr/iti/index.html>
From: smart-contracts-wg@... <smart-contracts-wg@...>
On Behalf Of smart-contracts-wg@... Calendar
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:00 AM
To: smart-contracts-wg@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019 #cal-notice
Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update
When:
Thursday, 5 September 2019
Organizer:
community-architects@...
Description:
The Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG update to the TSC is due 3 September, 2019. Please be sure that someone from the community completes the update and is available to present it to the
TSC on 6 September, 2019. Please follow this link to create the update.
|
|
|
Re: FW: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019
#tsc-wg-update
#cal-notice
Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
Hi,
Thanks for the update. I guess there may be a paste artifact in the reminder notification.
The TSC is indeed scheduled to meet today Sept 6. Generally we review these updates offline and if there is not sufficient time in the meeting we may forego verbal review.
Also typically that offline review happens in the days leading up to the meeting. As such, it’s unlikely that it will be widely reviewed by the TSC before today’s meeting.
Thanks,
Dan
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:12 PM
To: "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Cc: "Community-architects@..." <Community-architects@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] FW: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019 #cal-notice
Hi everybody,
I received this notification about the SC WG’s report presentation which apart from the wrong title (SC WG China??) it mentions that the presentation to the TSC
is on 6 September. Is this right? Because as far as I know the TSC’s meeting is today. Please confirm which is the right day/time. You can find the report here
https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/2019+Q2+Smart+Contracts+WG
Thank you,
Sofia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Terzi | Blockchain Solutions Architect MSc.
[Email] <sterzi@...>
[CERTH-ITI] <https://www.iti.gr/iti/index.html>
From: smart-contracts-wg@... <smart-contracts-wg@...>
On Behalf Of smart-contracts-wg@... Calendar
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:00 AM
To: smart-contracts-wg@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019 #cal-notice
Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update
When:
Thursday, 5 September 2019
Organizer:
community-architects@...
Description:
The Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG update to the TSC is due 3 September, 2019. Please be sure that someone from the community completes the update and is available to present it to the
TSC on 6 September, 2019. Please follow this link to create the update.
|
|
|
FW: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019
#tsc-wg-update
#cal-notice
Sofia Terzi
Hi everybody, I received this notification about the SC WG’s report presentation which apart from the wrong title (SC WG China??) it mentions that the presentation to the TSC is on 6 September. Is this right? Because as far as I know the TSC’s meeting is today. Please confirm which is the right day/time. You can find the report here https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/2019+Q2+Smart+Contracts+WG Thank you, Sofia --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sofia Terzi | Blockchain Solutions Architect MSc. [Email] <sterzi@...> [CERTH-ITI] <https://www.iti.gr/iti/index.html>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: smart-contracts-wg@... <smart-contracts-wg@...> On Behalf Of smart-contracts-wg@... Calendar
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:00 AM
To: smart-contracts-wg@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG] Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 09/05/2019 #cal-notice Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG China Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update When:
Thursday, 5 September 2019 Organizer:
community-architects@... Description:
The Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG update to the TSC is due 3 September, 2019. Please be sure that someone from the community completes the update and is available to present it to the TSC on 6 September, 2019. Please follow this link to create the update.
|
|
|
2019-08-29 TSC meeting minutes are up
Dave Huseby <dhuseby@...>
|
|
|
36 hours left to vote in the TSC election
Ry Jones
So far, we have 185 of 585 possible ballots cast. Polling ends in just under 36 hours.
You vote is important - please vote!
-- Ry Jones Community Architect, Hyperledger
|
|
|
Re: Deprecation of Composer
I'd appreciate it if you indicated that concerto-composer and concerto-composer-tools will be moving to accordproject.org where they will continue to be developed and maintained.
Thanks, Dan
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2 September 2019 2:42:51 AM GMT-07:00, Simon Stone <sstone1@...> wrote:
>Finally - should I assume that the Hyperledger marketing team will take
>care of the various hyperledger.org pages?
Yep, we have a few things to push live based on Thursdays call!
Brian
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--  | Dan Selman CTO |
| |
|
|
This message is confidential and its contents shall not be distributed to any third parties without the permission of the sender. Similarly any documents that are marked as private and confidential or similar are strictly not for distribution or disclosure to any unaddressed parties, without exception. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Re: Deprecation of Composer
On 2 September 2019 2:42:51 AM GMT-07:00, Simon Stone <sstone1@...> wrote:
>Finally - should I assume that the Hyperledger marketing team will take
>care of the various hyperledger.org pages?
Yep, we have a few things to push live based on Thursdays call!
Brian
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
|
|
|
Re: Deprecation of Composer
Simon Stone <sstone1@...>
Hi Dan, Thanks for confirming the change was approved. I've made quite a few updates today to Composer to indicate the projects status. Happy to move these into the wiki: - GitHub repository descriptions updated: - https://github.com/hyperledger/composer - (and all the other repos) - GitHub files README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and MAINTAINERS.md updated: - https://github.com/hyperledger/composer/blob/master/README.md - https://github.com/hyperledger/composer/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md - https://github.com/hyperledger/composer/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md - (and all the other repos) - Composer documentation updated: - https://hyperledger.github.io/composer/ - https://hyperledger.github.io/composer/latest/introduction/introduction.html- Composer playground updated: - https://composer-playground.mybluemix.net- Composer npm modules updated: - https://npmjs.com/package/composer-cli- Composer Docker images updated: - https://hub.docker.com/r/hyperledger/composer-cli/- Composer Rocket.Chat channels updated: - https://chat.hyperledger.org/channel/composerSpecial thanks to Ry for helping me with various permissions! Finally - should I assume that the Hyperledger marketing team will take care of the various hyperledger.org pages? Best regards, Simon Stone -----tsc@... wrote: ----- To: Baohua Yang <yangbaohua@...> From: "Middleton, Dan" Sent by: tsc@... Date: 08/29/2019 05:15PM Cc: Simon Stone <sstone1@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "composer@..." <composer@...>, "dan@..." <dan@...>, "Caroline Fletcher" <caroline.fletcher@...> Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Deprecation of Composer Deprecated is the existing term: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Lifecycle#ProjectLifecycle-deprecated In my experience _deprecated_ means, “hey this thing is going away and won’t be supported much longer” which is the message that we want users to hear. Caroline/Dan/Simon can you please update the composer readme with an indication of its new status. (The TSC approved the change today including your request of a soft end date before transition to EOL). Probably a good idea to mark the topic field in your chat channel(s) and send a note to your mail list as well. If you can help us form a checklist of these actions that will be helpful for future projects. We could put that somewhere in the lifecycle section of the wiki. Thanks, Dan From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Baohua Yang <yangbaohua@...> Date: Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:04 AM To: Dan Middleton <dan.middleton@...> Cc: Simon Stone <sstone1@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "composer@..." <composer@...>, "dan@..." <dan@...>, Caroline Fletcher <caroline.fletcher@...> Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Deprecation of Composer Somehow, i feel the term deprecation is not that appropriate for a mature-enough project like Composer. It might be more reasonable to rename it as Maintenance, as there are still supports to fix those important issues. Proposed --> Incubation --> Active --> Maintenance --> End of Life Thoughts? Thanks!
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:16 AM Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...> wrote: Hi Simon, Dan, and Caroline, We will put this up for ratification at this week's TSC meeting. I do think this is a healthy sign of a mature open source organization - that we are actively managing the portfolio of projects and in this case that the community itself is taking that active role. Thanks, Dan Middleton Principal Engineer Intel < https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/diversity/diversity-at-intel.html> On 8/28/19, 7:44 AM, "tsc@... on behalf of Simon Stone" <tsc@... on behalf of sstone1@...> wrote: Hello, It's been a whole year since the IBM team contributing to Composer moved to focus on Fabric. Dan Selman, the other maintainer, has been focusing on smart legal contracts under the Accord project. In that time, very little activity has occurred in Composer, with the exception of us publishing several bug fix releases for users we know of who are still using Composer in production (these users are all in the process of migrating their solutions to Fabric). Also in this time, no other contributors have stepped forward to take over development of the Composer project. We have been following the output of the Project Lifecycle Task Force, and we would like to propose to the TSC that the Composer project is moved into deprecated status. As mentioned above, we are continuing to support certain users, and we are also happy to continue to merge and publish fixes from other contributors if they arise. We understand that after we move into deprecated status, there will be a period of 6 months before Composer is moved into EOL. We have no problems with this, but nearer the time we may want to discuss options around continuing to support certain users. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything, or if you need us to do anything else on top of this note. Many thanks, Simon StoneUnless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- Best wishes! Baohua Yang Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
|
|
|
tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
Reminder: Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update
When:
Thursday, 5 September 2019
View Event
Organizer:
community-architects@...
Description: The Hyperledger Smart Contracts WG update to the TSC was due 02 September, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on 05 September, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Working Group Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.
|
|
|
Re: Deprecation of Composer
Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
Deprecated is the existing term:
https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Lifecycle#ProjectLifecycle-deprecated
In my experience _deprecated_ means, “hey this thing is going away and won’t be supported much longer” which is the message that we want users to hear.
Caroline/Dan/Simon can you please update the composer readme with an indication of its new status. (The TSC approved the change today including your request of a soft end date before transition to EOL).
Probably a good idea to mark the topic field in your chat channel(s) and send a note to your mail list as well.
If you can help us form a checklist of these actions that will be helpful for future projects. We could put that somewhere in the lifecycle section of the wiki.
Thanks,
Dan
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Baohua Yang <yangbaohua@...>
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:04 AM
To: Dan Middleton <dan.middleton@...>
Cc: Simon Stone <sstone1@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "composer@..." <composer@...>, "dan@..." <dan@...>, Caroline Fletcher <caroline.fletcher@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Deprecation of Composer
Somehow, i feel the term deprecation is not that appropriate for a mature-enough project like Composer.
It might be more reasonable to rename it as Maintenance, as there are still supports to fix those important issues.
Proposed --> Incubation --> Active --> Maintenance --> End of Life
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:16 AM Middleton, Dan < dan.middleton@...> wrote:
Hi Simon, Dan, and Caroline,
We will put this up for ratification at this week's TSC meeting.
I do think this is a healthy sign of a mature open source organization - that we are actively managing the portfolio of projects and in this case that the community itself is taking that active role.
Thanks,
Dan Middleton
Principal Engineer
Intel <https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/diversity/diversity-at-intel.html>
On 8/28/19, 7:44 AM, "tsc@... on behalf of Simon Stone" <tsc@... on behalf of
sstone1@...> wrote:
Hello,
It's been a whole year since the IBM team contributing to Composer moved to focus on Fabric. Dan Selman, the other maintainer, has been focusing on smart legal contracts under the Accord project.
In that time, very little activity has occurred in Composer, with the exception of us publishing several bug fix releases for users we know of who are still using Composer in production (these users are all in the process of migrating their solutions to
Fabric). Also in this time, no other contributors have stepped forward to take over development of the Composer project.
We have been following the output of the Project Lifecycle Task Force, and we would like to propose to the TSC that the Composer project is moved into deprecated status. As mentioned above, we are continuing to support certain users, and we are also happy
to continue to merge and publish fixes from other contributors if they arise.
We understand that after we move into deprecated status, there will be a period of 6 months before Composer is moved into EOL. We have no problems with this, but nearer the time we may want to discuss options around continuing to support certain users.
Please let me know if I misunderstood anything, or if you need us to do anything else on top of this note.
Many thanks,
Simon StoneUnless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
--
|
|
|
