Date   

Agenda is up

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

Agenda is posted. Please suggest announcements etc.


Notice Caliper Update is live - please read in advance.

I will also send a separate email in a bit about Project Chairs and Vice Chairs.  So we can begin discussions in advance.

Thank you,
Silona

--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Confluence Downtime 9am Eastern July 21

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

Confluence will experience a short outage on Friday at 9am Eastern NYC time zone as we do a hard rebuild of Confluence's indexes to fix a bug.

We apologize for the outage.   We understand that the timing is not ideal but we prefer to do this when full staff is available.  We expect the outage to only be about 15 minutes total.  We will keep everyone posted on chat.hyperledger.org #wiki and #infra-support.

--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Re: [Hyperledger Supply Chain SIG] [Hyperledger Grid] Defining Performance metrics for Provenance

Dave Cecchi
 

AWESOME to see the energy around collaborating on Smart Contract design for Supply Chain use cases on Hyperledger!!

Hyperledger Grid is fantastic landing place for that logic/implementation, and is declaratively about providing a home for that type of reusable business logic and data models.  One method for driving alignment/consensus on proposed logic would be to work via an RFC process in the Grid RFC repo:

  https://github.com/hyperledger/grid-rfcs

The readme in this repo outlines the process this group could follow.

-dc


Re: [Hyperledger Supply Chain SIG] [Hyperledger Grid] Defining Performance metrics for Provenance

Jay Chugh <jay.chugh@...>
 

Hi Brad, 

That’s great to hear. Are you able to share the smart contract design that you speak of below? 

In the Supply Chain SIG, which I currently chair, we have a project proposal underway that deals with creating one or more smart contract templates for Supply Chain use cases, as a way to help others speed up blockchain adoption/reduce learning curve. 

Your contribution with your smart contract design referenced below could be a good starting point. Please feel free to join the smart contract project and make it successful.

Thanks,
Jay 


On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:53 AM, bradmulley@... wrote:
Hi Mark,
 
This is really interesting. We are beginning to design smart contracts to help limit fraud within a zero-deforestation cacao supply chain in Ivory Coast.  Would be great to exchange ideas on this. 
 
Cheers,
Brad
 
 
Brad Mulley
Founding Director
Gaiachain
Phone: +33772168835
Skype: bmulley
 
 
 
From: grid@... <grid@...> On Behalf Of mark wagner
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 9:35 PM
To: grid@...; transact@...; supply-chain-sig@...
Cc: perf-and-scale-wg@...; caliper@...; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger Grid] Defining Performance metrics for Provenance
 

Hi
 
The Performance and Scale Working Group (PSWG) is looking to define performance metrics for supply chain provenance. Vipin has written up a quick overview for us to start the work. 
 
 
We are hoping to collaborate with other groups and projects looking at supply chain and smart contracts in order to ensure that we get things right. So my ask is that folks from the different HL groups can aid us in our efforts. The payoff is that at the end of this process there will be something that can be used to benchmark Provenance use cases. 
 
Thanks
 
-mark
-- 
Mark Wagner
Chair - Performance and Scale Working Group
Hyperledger



Friday fun: Get a spine!

Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

This whole podcast episode is good,

 

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/get-a-spine

 

but in particular the second act seemed relevant OSS communities.

 

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/get-a-spine/act-two-5

 

It centers on invertebrate research. The relevance is not obvious at the beginning, and I don’t want to oversell the little twist at the end, but worth listening to.

 

Regards,

Dan

 

 


Upcoming changes for RE support requests

Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
 

Service Desk migration

The Linux Foundation IT is migrating from email-based support system using Request Tracker to a web-based platform provided by Jira Service Desk. We are doing this in order to improve our level of service and your support experience.


The following are the primary improvements you should expect after migration is complete:


  1. Single Sign-On with other Linux Foundation sites, using the same LF ID credentials

  2. Integration with knowledge base articles to help identify possible self-service solutions

  3. Ability to track all your support requests across various projects via the same service desk interface

  4. Ability to see public issues created by other members of your project


The new service desk will become available to you starting Monday, June 17, 2019.


Any support requests that are already open in RT will be preserved and completed there, so there is no need to re-submit them again using the Jira Service Desk. Any new tickets created in RT will be automatically closed with a suggestion and instructions to use the new service desk procedure.


Starting Monday, June 17, please use the procedure described in the attached “Getting LF IT Help” document.


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Shawn Amundson
 

I wouldn't describe Indy or Grid as a library. A lot of Grid is library/component stuff, but describing it that way in a taxonomy minimizes the overall project, because it does attempt to dictate some architectural concerns at the layer above the distributed ledgers. Maybe "Focused" or "Distinctive". or "Higher-order".

In the tools category - Caliper and Explorer are essentially specialized apps. Cello is for deployment. But Composer is for building applications, which would seem to differentiate it.

Looking quickly at the quilt repo again - I agree, should probably be classified as a library.

-Shawn

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:23 AM Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...> wrote:
Ledger & Domain libraries?

    Distributed Ledgers: Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Sawtooth

    Ledger Libraries: Quilt, Transact, Ursa

    Domain Libraries: Aries (wallet/edge), Grid (supply chain), Indy (identity)

    Tools: Caliper, Cello, Explorer, Composer

I also like Tracy's comments on active/incubating. Thinking of future-proofing this, we are going to have projects that exit the lifecycle, and those are more likely to be things that don't get out of incubation (and I think that's a healthy part of a well curated portfolio). And as new things are added they will inherently be incubated, so most of the volatility will be in that space.

Thinking about convergence and Chris's comments, anything that visually conveys strict boundaries is bad. Good area for marcomm design rather than technical mail list feedback (unless we want to talk about luminescence and chrominance in the color scheme.) :)

--Dan


On 6/13/19, 9:38 AM, "tsc@... on behalf of Brian Behlendorf" <tsc@... on behalf of bbehlendorf@...> wrote:

    To restate the taxonomy proposed by Shawn with some slight modifications
    from me:


    Distributed Ledgers: Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Sawtooth

    Libraries: Quilt, Transact, Ursa

    Specialty: Aries (wallet/edge), Grid (supply chain), Indy (identity)

    Tools: Caliper, Cello, Explorer, Composer


    I'm not sure I like the term "Specialty", but I get the desire to
    reflect these as more focus on a specific set of use cases, without
    trying to be too limiting.  Are there better words for such a category? 
    I'm not sure if in the graphic we want to put the stuff in parens, but
    can if people think it's important.  In general we removed the tag lines
    for visual simplicity.

    Aries may be more of a library anyways, but if they're OK here I'm OK.

    Brian

    --
    Brian Behlendorf
    Executive Director, Hyperledger
    bbehlendorf@...
    Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


   




The TSC has approved enabling two factor auth for GitHub

Ry Jones
 

There was a vote today, and the motion to enable 2FA for the Hyperledger org on GitHub at the end of the next TSC call (20 JUN 2019) was approved.

If you are a member of the Hyperledger GitHub organization and you do not have 2FA enabled, GitHub will remove you from the org. This does not preclude rejoining in the future.

Ry


On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:40 PM Ry Jones <rjones@...> wrote:
Where we are today:
for the main org, there are three users with commit bits and no 2FA. None of these users has made a commit in over a year to any Hyperledger project as far as I can tell. Thanks to everyone that enabled two factor auth! I think it's fairly low risk to enable the requirement for 2FA at any time the TSC says it's OK.

For Labs, we have ~80 people in the org and ~20 without 2FA enabled. I haven't pushed as hard on Labs, so I suspect we should delay enabling it for a while. I haven't audited who has write bits, but I assume it's close to 100%.
Ry

--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Christopher Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

legerdemain, even?
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Fellow, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cognitive Applications
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
IBM Open Source white paper: https://developer.ibm.com/articles/cl-open-architecture-update/
phone: +1 508 667 0402
 
 

----- Original message -----
From: "Middleton, Dan" <dan.middleton@...>
Sent by: tsc@...
To: Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>, Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: "hyperledger-tsc@..." <hyperledger-tsc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2019 11:23 AM
 
Ledger & Domain libraries?

    Distributed Ledgers: Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Sawtooth
    
    Ledger Libraries: Quilt, Transact, Ursa
    
    Domain Libraries: Aries (wallet/edge), Grid (supply chain), Indy (identity)
    
    Tools: Caliper, Cello, Explorer, Composer

I also like Tracy's comments on active/incubating. Thinking of future-proofing this, we are going to have projects that exit the lifecycle, and those are more likely to be things that don't get out of incubation (and I think that's a healthy part of a well curated portfolio). And as new things are added they will inherently be incubated, so most of the volatility will be in that space.

Thinking about convergence and Chris's comments, anything that visually conveys strict boundaries is bad. Good area for marcomm design rather than technical mail list feedback (unless we want to talk about luminescence and chrominance in the color scheme.) :)

--Dan


On 6/13/19, 9:38 AM, "tsc@... on behalf of Brian Behlendorf" <tsc@... on behalf of bbehlendorf@...> wrote:

    To restate the taxonomy proposed by Shawn with some slight modifications
    from me:
    
    
    Distributed Ledgers: Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Sawtooth
    
    Libraries: Quilt, Transact, Ursa
    
    Specialty: Aries (wallet/edge), Grid (supply chain), Indy (identity)
    
    Tools: Caliper, Cello, Explorer, Composer
    
    
    I'm not sure I like the term "Specialty", but I get the desire to
    reflect these as more focus on a specific set of use cases, without
    trying to be too limiting.  Are there better words for such a category?  
    I'm not sure if in the graphic we want to put the stuff in parens, but
    can if people think it's important.  In general we removed the tag lines
    for visual simplicity.
    
    Aries may be more of a library anyways, but if they're OK here I'm OK.
    
    Brian
    
    --
    Brian Behlendorf
    Executive Director, Hyperledger
    bbehlendorf@...
    Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
    
    
    
    
    




 
 


Re: Defining Performance metrics for Provenance

Sofia Terzi
 

Hi all,

@Vipin and @ Mark

It will be great to work together on this. It was in our intentions to define use case specific smart contracts for various areas and supply chain was the use case we started with. We are currently writing down a list of business cases and their according use cases, you can take a look here https://wiki.hyperledger.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6422891, which will be decomposed to specific smart contracts per case. After that we will work on each specific smart contract to define them, things like necessary input - processing - output etc. and come up with standards.

I will add you invitation to our SC wiki page and I will inform everyone on our call on Wednesday 19 of June at 3pm GMT for this invitation to be recorded and added to the notes. Or even better, you are both welcome to attend and explain your concept and your vision of this collaboration for a comprehensive solution. Consider me in :-)

Best,

Sofia

Στις 12/6/2019 10:35 μ.μ., ο mark wagner έγραψε:


Hi

The Performance and Scale Working Group (PSWG) is looking to define performance metrics for supply chain provenance. Vipin has written up a quick overview for us to start the work.


We are hoping to collaborate with other groups and projects looking at supply chain and smart contracts in order to ensure that we get things right. So my ask is that folks from the different HL groups can aid us in our efforts. The payoff is that at the end of this process there will be something that can be used to benchmark Provenance use cases.

Thanks

-mark
--
Mark Wagner
Chair - Performance and Scale Working Group
Hyperledger


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

Ledger & Domain libraries?

Distributed Ledgers: Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Sawtooth

Ledger Libraries: Quilt, Transact, Ursa

Domain Libraries: Aries (wallet/edge), Grid (supply chain), Indy (identity)

Tools: Caliper, Cello, Explorer, Composer

I also like Tracy's comments on active/incubating. Thinking of future-proofing this, we are going to have projects that exit the lifecycle, and those are more likely to be things that don't get out of incubation (and I think that's a healthy part of a well curated portfolio). And as new things are added they will inherently be incubated, so most of the volatility will be in that space.

Thinking about convergence and Chris's comments, anything that visually conveys strict boundaries is bad. Good area for marcomm design rather than technical mail list feedback (unless we want to talk about luminescence and chrominance in the color scheme.) :)

--Dan


On 6/13/19, 9:38 AM, "tsc@... on behalf of Brian Behlendorf" <tsc@... on behalf of bbehlendorf@...> wrote:

To restate the taxonomy proposed by Shawn with some slight modifications
from me:


Distributed Ledgers: Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Sawtooth

Libraries: Quilt, Transact, Ursa

Specialty: Aries (wallet/edge), Grid (supply chain), Indy (identity)

Tools: Caliper, Cello, Explorer, Composer


I'm not sure I like the term "Specialty", but I get the desire to
reflect these as more focus on a specific set of use cases, without
trying to be too limiting. Are there better words for such a category?
I'm not sure if in the graphic we want to put the stuff in parens, but
can if people think it's important. In general we removed the tag lines
for visual simplicity.

Aries may be more of a library anyways, but if they're OK here I'm OK.

Brian

--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Brian Behlendorf
 

To restate the taxonomy proposed by Shawn with some slight modifications from me:


Distributed Ledgers: Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Sawtooth

Libraries: Quilt, Transact, Ursa

Specialty: Aries (wallet/edge), Grid (supply chain), Indy (identity)

Tools: Caliper, Cello, Explorer, Composer


I'm not sure I like the term "Specialty", but I get the desire to reflect these as more focus on a specific set of use cases, without trying to be too limiting.  Are there better words for such a category?  I'm not sure if in the graphic we want to put the stuff in parens, but can if people think it's important.  In general we removed the tag lines for visual simplicity.

Aries may be more of a library anyways, but if they're OK here I'm OK.

Brian

--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Casey Kuhlman
 

I'm with the rest on the necessity of this conversation and with Vipin am pleased it's taking place in this forum. To respond to Chris's question, my view on Burrow is that the codebase itself is "full stack" to the same extent as Fabric, Sawtooth, Iroha, and Indy are. As Chris said the EVM is increasingly well used which we are keen to continue. I balked when Brian first circulated the diagram but didn't respond as I felt it was a bit too early to worry about where burrow fits into the categories as we didn't have alignment on what the categories would be.

My proclivities on these categories are that "frameworks" have never been a clean label for software at this level which communicates much beyond being a generic noun. I'm fairly sure that every top level Hyperledger codebase has labelled itself as a framework (or platform) in some contexts. Caliper, just as an example, I've heard described as a "framework for bench marking your distributed ledger systems". Which is fair enough and I don't really quibble with. But I also don't think that "frameworks" would be an illustrative category for the Hyperledger codebases.

Personally I think we have four categories of codebases at this point: blockchains, things that are "parts" of blockchains, things that run "inside" blockchains, and things that run "around" blockchains.

As such, my proposal would be the following classifications:
  • blockchains -> Ledgers (e.g., fabric, sawtooth, iroha, indy as a whole, burrow)
  • things that are "parts" of blockchains -> Libraries (e.g., the broken up indy libs, ursa)
  • things that run "inside" a blockchain -> Components (e.g., grid, and our BPM library if we ever find the time to propose it)
  • things that run "around" a blockchain -> Tools (e.g., caliper, cello, explorer)
In my view the only codebase that I don't think very cleanly fits one category above would be quilt. I'd put it as running "inside' a blockchain but I could also see it as a "part" of a blockchain. For most of the codebases I think it is pretty clear, do I use this to make a blockchain, do I use this to make an application on top of a blockchain, does this help me construct/test/understand a blockchain runtime or network.

If anything gets called a framework, my own view would be that Grid and the alike codebases that run "inside" a blockchain and are used to "make applications" are the closest thing we are collectively building to what an outsider would probably think of as a "framework" -- which, in a software context makes me think of Rails / Django as my paradigmatic examples. I don't really think that MongoDB or MariaDB or Riak would classify themselves as a "framework for data management" which is why it's always felt awkward to me trying to put blockchain runtimes -- which I view as closer to Riak or MariaDB than I do to Rials or Django -- into that bucket.

FWIW, if you prefer "DLT" to "blockchain" feel free to `s/blockchain/DLT/g`
____________________________________

Casey Kuhlman, Monax
CEO
Email: casey@... 
Phone (US): +1-423-523-9531(UK): +44-75-073-96359
____________________________________


On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:15 PM Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
Hello all,

I am glad we are having this discussion in the open; as I agree with Shawn that this is too important to be decided by committee. 

There seem to be two issues at play here
1. Classification
2. Representation

Classification: This is one of the oldest challenges, as division into classes is often challenged by what happens to entities that seem to belong in multiple classes (classic example: Indy, it creates a Framework, and is also in "Specialty" , Chris Ferris brought up Burrow) This challenge has been encountered in classification in biology, botany, grammar etc.- so it is basic to classification. One way is to represent the straddlers in both classes, another to put them in one category and then add some descriptors that indicate membership in multiple classes. There may be other methods.

Representation: This is another challenge as the view (or skin) has to change depending on who is viewing (business, developers etc.).  I am with Mark that we may be getting too big to get everything crammed into a single graphic, and may need categories that are alive. In the sense they can be further explored with mouse-overs, popups, drill down, zooms etc. We need an image that is explorable. 

The technical Working Groups (Architecture, Identity, Performance & Scale) have long asked for representation on the front page for a while as they are foundational and cross-platform and represent the idea of Hyperledger as a unifying construct. In the greenhouse metaphor, they are the glass on the outside, the irrigation system and the thermo/humidity regulation systems. 

Best,
Vipin

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:33 AM mark wagner <mwagner@...> wrote:
Well the good news is that I think that we are getting too large to fit everything on one graphic!

As a gardening business grows, it needs to stop listing every product on the greenhouse map and just start listing general categories. Perhaps we should look at just keeping the main categories in the greenhouse? 

Specific lists of the contents of each area could be a distinct graphic or just speaker notes. This approach will also make it easier keep things updated as new projects are added, move along the life cycle path, etc. It also makes it easier to show relationships between the categories, libraries underneath supporting everything, frameworks, tools off to the side, dare I say apps on top. The working groups, SIGs, marketing, legal etc would also be called out.

-mark

PS. I did like the trail map but it seems too busy for what we are looking to do.



On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:32 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Dear TSC and others,

With the recent growth in the Hyperledger greenhouse, and continued expansion anticipated for the foreseeable future, it's time for an update to our greenhouse graphic and related project taxonomy. I requested the help of the LF Staff and Marketing Committe Chairs and they came back with two graphics that accommodate the following needed improvements: 
  • Updated the taxonomy for clarity and precision. Projects will now be classified as frameworks, components, templates and tools instead of just frameworks and tools.  We made a guess as to where each project would like to be, realizing the boundaries can be fuzzy.  If you feel they should be grouped differently let's discuss that, but we can accommodate some movement within the layout. 
  • We placed in some blank generic logos to accommodate anticipated expansion.  When we publish this formally we will remove the generic logos; it's merely intended to show where we'd expand.
  • Illustrate a broader view of the various ways to participate in the greenhouse by including a sort of foundation floor in this greenhouse to include Labs, as well as a community section including WGs, SIGs, Meetups and HGF.  If this results in a graphic that's too tall or busy for, say, a slide in a presentation slide deck, this section can be moved to its own slide, which is why we show it with and without.  It's anticipated that we'd make each of the individual components here look better before final push, perhaps by coming up with logos for each or at least different colors.
  • Emphasize the frameworks, as they are likely the first projects we want people new to HL to know about, and they pull together many of the other pieces as components.  We still need better taglines for each framework but those can be improved over time.
  • We removed the taglines for the other projects for visual simplicity; perhaps on the website when showing this graphic we can have a roll-over that shows more depth on each project before shooting you over to the project's particular home page.
  • Remove the greyed out other LF projects and "Community Stewardship and Technical, Legal, Marketing, Organizational Infrastructure" copy to avoid this looking like a sea of small print as the greenhouse grows.
Please see the revised graphics below.  We invite you to share your comments on this thread or on the call Thursday, and either then or in the near future a vote reflecting the TSC's acceptance.



HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_Community.png





HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_NoCommunity.png



I didn't turn this into a Wiki page just yet as I didn't want anyone to be confused that this was anything other than a draft, but if I'm being too cautious on that front and someone else fels it would be useful to do that, feel free.

We'll look at checking in the source materials for this chart and the logo into the wiki or GH repo.

Thanks!

Brian


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



--
Mark Wagner
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Performance and Scalability
Red Hat, Inc


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Silas Davis
 

s/permission/position!

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:21, Silas Davis <silas@...> wrote:
Hi All,

As Shawn and Chris draw attention to - Burrow is certainly in the wrong permission. Burrow EVM module _is_ used as component but that is about 10% of the project. We are a fully fledged BFT distributed ledger including built in tooling for compiling and deploying smart contracts, event processing, SQL persistence layer, etc etc.

In terms of classification we belong in the same box as Fabric, Sawtooth, Iroha, et al.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 14:16, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
Hello all,

I am glad we are having this discussion in the open; as I agree with Shawn that this is too important to be decided by committee. 

There seem to be two issues at play here
1. Classification
2. Representation

Classification: This is one of the oldest challenges, as division into classes is often challenged by what happens to entities that seem to belong in multiple classes (classic example: Indy, it creates a Framework, and is also in "Specialty" , Chris Ferris brought up Burrow) This challenge has been encountered in classification in biology, botany, grammar etc.- so it is basic to classification. One way is to represent the straddlers in both classes, another to put them in one category and then add some descriptors that indicate membership in multiple classes. There may be other methods.

Representation: This is another challenge as the view (or skin) has to change depending on who is viewing (business, developers etc.).  I am with Mark that we may be getting too big to get everything crammed into a single graphic, and may need categories that are alive. In the sense they can be further explored with mouse-overs, popups, drill down, zooms etc. We need an image that is explorable. 

The technical Working Groups (Architecture, Identity, Performance & Scale) have long asked for representation on the front page for a while as they are foundational and cross-platform and represent the idea of Hyperledger as a unifying construct. In the greenhouse metaphor, they are the glass on the outside, the irrigation system and the thermo/humidity regulation systems. 

Best,
Vipin

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:33 AM mark wagner <mwagner@...> wrote:
Well the good news is that I think that we are getting too large to fit everything on one graphic!

As a gardening business grows, it needs to stop listing every product on the greenhouse map and just start listing general categories. Perhaps we should look at just keeping the main categories in the greenhouse? 

Specific lists of the contents of each area could be a distinct graphic or just speaker notes. This approach will also make it easier keep things updated as new projects are added, move along the life cycle path, etc. It also makes it easier to show relationships between the categories, libraries underneath supporting everything, frameworks, tools off to the side, dare I say apps on top. The working groups, SIGs, marketing, legal etc would also be called out.

-mark

PS. I did like the trail map but it seems too busy for what we are looking to do.



On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:32 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Dear TSC and others,

With the recent growth in the Hyperledger greenhouse, and continued expansion anticipated for the foreseeable future, it's time for an update to our greenhouse graphic and related project taxonomy. I requested the help of the LF Staff and Marketing Committe Chairs and they came back with two graphics that accommodate the following needed improvements: 
  • Updated the taxonomy for clarity and precision. Projects will now be classified as frameworks, components, templates and tools instead of just frameworks and tools.  We made a guess as to where each project would like to be, realizing the boundaries can be fuzzy.  If you feel they should be grouped differently let's discuss that, but we can accommodate some movement within the layout. 
  • We placed in some blank generic logos to accommodate anticipated expansion.  When we publish this formally we will remove the generic logos; it's merely intended to show where we'd expand.
  • Illustrate a broader view of the various ways to participate in the greenhouse by including a sort of foundation floor in this greenhouse to include Labs, as well as a community section including WGs, SIGs, Meetups and HGF.  If this results in a graphic that's too tall or busy for, say, a slide in a presentation slide deck, this section can be moved to its own slide, which is why we show it with and without.  It's anticipated that we'd make each of the individual components here look better before final push, perhaps by coming up with logos for each or at least different colors.
  • Emphasize the frameworks, as they are likely the first projects we want people new to HL to know about, and they pull together many of the other pieces as components.  We still need better taglines for each framework but those can be improved over time.
  • We removed the taglines for the other projects for visual simplicity; perhaps on the website when showing this graphic we can have a roll-over that shows more depth on each project before shooting you over to the project's particular home page.
  • Remove the greyed out other LF projects and "Community Stewardship and Technical, Legal, Marketing, Organizational Infrastructure" copy to avoid this looking like a sea of small print as the greenhouse grows.
Please see the revised graphics below.  We invite you to share your comments on this thread or on the call Thursday, and either then or in the near future a vote reflecting the TSC's acceptance.



HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_Community.png





HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_NoCommunity.png



I didn't turn this into a Wiki page just yet as I didn't want anyone to be confused that this was anything other than a draft, but if I'm being too cautious on that front and someone else fels it would be useful to do that, feel free.

We'll look at checking in the source materials for this chart and the logo into the wiki or GH repo.

Thanks!

Brian


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



--
Mark Wagner
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Performance and Scalability
Red Hat, Inc


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Silas Davis
 

Hi All,

As Shawn and Chris draw attention to - Burrow is certainly in the wrong permission. Burrow EVM module _is_ used as component but that is about 10% of the project. We are a fully fledged BFT distributed ledger including built in tooling for compiling and deploying smart contracts, event processing, SQL persistence layer, etc etc.

In terms of classification we belong in the same box as Fabric, Sawtooth, Iroha, et al.


On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 14:16, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
Hello all,

I am glad we are having this discussion in the open; as I agree with Shawn that this is too important to be decided by committee. 

There seem to be two issues at play here
1. Classification
2. Representation

Classification: This is one of the oldest challenges, as division into classes is often challenged by what happens to entities that seem to belong in multiple classes (classic example: Indy, it creates a Framework, and is also in "Specialty" , Chris Ferris brought up Burrow) This challenge has been encountered in classification in biology, botany, grammar etc.- so it is basic to classification. One way is to represent the straddlers in both classes, another to put them in one category and then add some descriptors that indicate membership in multiple classes. There may be other methods.

Representation: This is another challenge as the view (or skin) has to change depending on who is viewing (business, developers etc.).  I am with Mark that we may be getting too big to get everything crammed into a single graphic, and may need categories that are alive. In the sense they can be further explored with mouse-overs, popups, drill down, zooms etc. We need an image that is explorable. 

The technical Working Groups (Architecture, Identity, Performance & Scale) have long asked for representation on the front page for a while as they are foundational and cross-platform and represent the idea of Hyperledger as a unifying construct. In the greenhouse metaphor, they are the glass on the outside, the irrigation system and the thermo/humidity regulation systems. 

Best,
Vipin

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:33 AM mark wagner <mwagner@...> wrote:
Well the good news is that I think that we are getting too large to fit everything on one graphic!

As a gardening business grows, it needs to stop listing every product on the greenhouse map and just start listing general categories. Perhaps we should look at just keeping the main categories in the greenhouse? 

Specific lists of the contents of each area could be a distinct graphic or just speaker notes. This approach will also make it easier keep things updated as new projects are added, move along the life cycle path, etc. It also makes it easier to show relationships between the categories, libraries underneath supporting everything, frameworks, tools off to the side, dare I say apps on top. The working groups, SIGs, marketing, legal etc would also be called out.

-mark

PS. I did like the trail map but it seems too busy for what we are looking to do.



On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:32 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Dear TSC and others,

With the recent growth in the Hyperledger greenhouse, and continued expansion anticipated for the foreseeable future, it's time for an update to our greenhouse graphic and related project taxonomy. I requested the help of the LF Staff and Marketing Committe Chairs and they came back with two graphics that accommodate the following needed improvements: 
  • Updated the taxonomy for clarity and precision. Projects will now be classified as frameworks, components, templates and tools instead of just frameworks and tools.  We made a guess as to where each project would like to be, realizing the boundaries can be fuzzy.  If you feel they should be grouped differently let's discuss that, but we can accommodate some movement within the layout. 
  • We placed in some blank generic logos to accommodate anticipated expansion.  When we publish this formally we will remove the generic logos; it's merely intended to show where we'd expand.
  • Illustrate a broader view of the various ways to participate in the greenhouse by including a sort of foundation floor in this greenhouse to include Labs, as well as a community section including WGs, SIGs, Meetups and HGF.  If this results in a graphic that's too tall or busy for, say, a slide in a presentation slide deck, this section can be moved to its own slide, which is why we show it with and without.  It's anticipated that we'd make each of the individual components here look better before final push, perhaps by coming up with logos for each or at least different colors.
  • Emphasize the frameworks, as they are likely the first projects we want people new to HL to know about, and they pull together many of the other pieces as components.  We still need better taglines for each framework but those can be improved over time.
  • We removed the taglines for the other projects for visual simplicity; perhaps on the website when showing this graphic we can have a roll-over that shows more depth on each project before shooting you over to the project's particular home page.
  • Remove the greyed out other LF projects and "Community Stewardship and Technical, Legal, Marketing, Organizational Infrastructure" copy to avoid this looking like a sea of small print as the greenhouse grows.
Please see the revised graphics below.  We invite you to share your comments on this thread or on the call Thursday, and either then or in the near future a vote reflecting the TSC's acceptance.



HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_Community.png





HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_NoCommunity.png



I didn't turn this into a Wiki page just yet as I didn't want anyone to be confused that this was anything other than a draft, but if I'm being too cautious on that front and someone else fels it would be useful to do that, feel free.

We'll look at checking in the source materials for this chart and the logo into the wiki or GH repo.

Thanks!

Brian


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



--
Mark Wagner
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Performance and Scalability
Red Hat, Inc


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Vipin Bharathan
 

Hello all,

I am glad we are having this discussion in the open; as I agree with Shawn that this is too important to be decided by committee. 

There seem to be two issues at play here
1. Classification
2. Representation

Classification: This is one of the oldest challenges, as division into classes is often challenged by what happens to entities that seem to belong in multiple classes (classic example: Indy, it creates a Framework, and is also in "Specialty" , Chris Ferris brought up Burrow) This challenge has been encountered in classification in biology, botany, grammar etc.- so it is basic to classification. One way is to represent the straddlers in both classes, another to put them in one category and then add some descriptors that indicate membership in multiple classes. There may be other methods.

Representation: This is another challenge as the view (or skin) has to change depending on who is viewing (business, developers etc.).  I am with Mark that we may be getting too big to get everything crammed into a single graphic, and may need categories that are alive. In the sense they can be further explored with mouse-overs, popups, drill down, zooms etc. We need an image that is explorable. 

The technical Working Groups (Architecture, Identity, Performance & Scale) have long asked for representation on the front page for a while as they are foundational and cross-platform and represent the idea of Hyperledger as a unifying construct. In the greenhouse metaphor, they are the glass on the outside, the irrigation system and the thermo/humidity regulation systems. 

Best,
Vipin


On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:33 AM mark wagner <mwagner@...> wrote:
Well the good news is that I think that we are getting too large to fit everything on one graphic!

As a gardening business grows, it needs to stop listing every product on the greenhouse map and just start listing general categories. Perhaps we should look at just keeping the main categories in the greenhouse? 

Specific lists of the contents of each area could be a distinct graphic or just speaker notes. This approach will also make it easier keep things updated as new projects are added, move along the life cycle path, etc. It also makes it easier to show relationships between the categories, libraries underneath supporting everything, frameworks, tools off to the side, dare I say apps on top. The working groups, SIGs, marketing, legal etc would also be called out.

-mark

PS. I did like the trail map but it seems too busy for what we are looking to do.



On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:32 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Dear TSC and others,

With the recent growth in the Hyperledger greenhouse, and continued expansion anticipated for the foreseeable future, it's time for an update to our greenhouse graphic and related project taxonomy. I requested the help of the LF Staff and Marketing Committe Chairs and they came back with two graphics that accommodate the following needed improvements: 
  • Updated the taxonomy for clarity and precision. Projects will now be classified as frameworks, components, templates and tools instead of just frameworks and tools.  We made a guess as to where each project would like to be, realizing the boundaries can be fuzzy.  If you feel they should be grouped differently let's discuss that, but we can accommodate some movement within the layout. 
  • We placed in some blank generic logos to accommodate anticipated expansion.  When we publish this formally we will remove the generic logos; it's merely intended to show where we'd expand.
  • Illustrate a broader view of the various ways to participate in the greenhouse by including a sort of foundation floor in this greenhouse to include Labs, as well as a community section including WGs, SIGs, Meetups and HGF.  If this results in a graphic that's too tall or busy for, say, a slide in a presentation slide deck, this section can be moved to its own slide, which is why we show it with and without.  It's anticipated that we'd make each of the individual components here look better before final push, perhaps by coming up with logos for each or at least different colors.
  • Emphasize the frameworks, as they are likely the first projects we want people new to HL to know about, and they pull together many of the other pieces as components.  We still need better taglines for each framework but those can be improved over time.
  • We removed the taglines for the other projects for visual simplicity; perhaps on the website when showing this graphic we can have a roll-over that shows more depth on each project before shooting you over to the project's particular home page.
  • Remove the greyed out other LF projects and "Community Stewardship and Technical, Legal, Marketing, Organizational Infrastructure" copy to avoid this looking like a sea of small print as the greenhouse grows.
Please see the revised graphics below.  We invite you to share your comments on this thread or on the call Thursday, and either then or in the near future a vote reflecting the TSC's acceptance.



HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_Community.png





HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_NoCommunity.png



I didn't turn this into a Wiki page just yet as I didn't want anyone to be confused that this was anything other than a draft, but if I'm being too cautious on that front and someone else fels it would be useful to do that, feel free.

We'll look at checking in the source materials for this chart and the logo into the wiki or GH repo.

Thanks!

Brian


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



--
Mark Wagner
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Performance and Scalability
Red Hat, Inc


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

mark wagner <mwagner@...>
 

Well the good news is that I think that we are getting too large to fit everything on one graphic!

As a gardening business grows, it needs to stop listing every product on the greenhouse map and just start listing general categories. Perhaps we should look at just keeping the main categories in the greenhouse? 

Specific lists of the contents of each area could be a distinct graphic or just speaker notes. This approach will also make it easier keep things updated as new projects are added, move along the life cycle path, etc. It also makes it easier to show relationships between the categories, libraries underneath supporting everything, frameworks, tools off to the side, dare I say apps on top. The working groups, SIGs, marketing, legal etc would also be called out.

-mark

PS. I did like the trail map but it seems too busy for what we are looking to do.



On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:32 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Dear TSC and others,

With the recent growth in the Hyperledger greenhouse, and continued expansion anticipated for the foreseeable future, it's time for an update to our greenhouse graphic and related project taxonomy. I requested the help of the LF Staff and Marketing Committe Chairs and they came back with two graphics that accommodate the following needed improvements: 
  • Updated the taxonomy for clarity and precision. Projects will now be classified as frameworks, components, templates and tools instead of just frameworks and tools.  We made a guess as to where each project would like to be, realizing the boundaries can be fuzzy.  If you feel they should be grouped differently let's discuss that, but we can accommodate some movement within the layout. 
  • We placed in some blank generic logos to accommodate anticipated expansion.  When we publish this formally we will remove the generic logos; it's merely intended to show where we'd expand.
  • Illustrate a broader view of the various ways to participate in the greenhouse by including a sort of foundation floor in this greenhouse to include Labs, as well as a community section including WGs, SIGs, Meetups and HGF.  If this results in a graphic that's too tall or busy for, say, a slide in a presentation slide deck, this section can be moved to its own slide, which is why we show it with and without.  It's anticipated that we'd make each of the individual components here look better before final push, perhaps by coming up with logos for each or at least different colors.
  • Emphasize the frameworks, as they are likely the first projects we want people new to HL to know about, and they pull together many of the other pieces as components.  We still need better taglines for each framework but those can be improved over time.
  • We removed the taglines for the other projects for visual simplicity; perhaps on the website when showing this graphic we can have a roll-over that shows more depth on each project before shooting you over to the project's particular home page.
  • Remove the greyed out other LF projects and "Community Stewardship and Technical, Legal, Marketing, Organizational Infrastructure" copy to avoid this looking like a sea of small print as the greenhouse grows.
Please see the revised graphics below.  We invite you to share your comments on this thread or on the call Thursday, and either then or in the near future a vote reflecting the TSC's acceptance.



HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_Community.png





HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_NoCommunity.png



I didn't turn this into a Wiki page just yet as I didn't want anyone to be confused that this was anything other than a draft, but if I'm being too cautious on that front and someone else fels it would be useful to do that, feel free.

We'll look at checking in the source materials for this chart and the logo into the wiki or GH repo.

Thanks!

Brian


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



--
Mark Wagner
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Performance and Scalability
Red Hat, Inc


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Christopher Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

I'm curious a to why Burrow is now considered a "Component" when in fact it is as much a framework
as any other. Yes, the Burrow EVM gets lots of attention as a component, but it is merely a sub-module of Burrow.
Curious to know what Silas and Casey think of this. That said, maybe pulling the EVM out as its own
project might make sense, too. That's for another discussion I suppose.
 
All that said, while I like the greenhouse metaphor, it is less clear to me how well it resonates.
Further, we keep bumping into the need to somehow classify and compare the various projects and that
gets rather awkward.
 
CNCF just discriminates by maturity (sandbox, incubating and graduated) and maybe that's what we might
consider as well. As we grow the greenhouse, I would observe that we have less time to talk about each project, which means we are imparting less information on those projects that maybe need a bit more 'splainin'.
 
Apache and Eclipse simply alphabetize their list. I don't see Mike or Sam getting into the weeds of each project.
Maybe we're past that now and should instead focus on helping people know how they can get involved (and that they are welcome). Maybe focus on how members are starting to collaborate across projects, etc. Highlight what important features are being worked on (without necessarily pigeon-holing to a specific project).
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Fellow, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cognitive Applications
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
IBM Open Source white paper: https://developer.ibm.com/articles/cl-open-architecture-update/
phone: +1 508 667 0402
 
 

----- Original message -----
From: "Brian Behlendorf" <bbehlendorf@...>
Sent by: tsc@...
To: "'hyperledger-tsc@...'" <hyperledger-tsc@...>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review
Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2019 9:29 PM
 
Dear TSC and others,
 
With the recent growth in the Hyperledger greenhouse, and continued expansion anticipated for the foreseeable future, it's time for an update to our greenhouse graphic and related project taxonomy. I requested the help of the LF Staff and Marketing Committe Chairs and they came back with two graphics that accommodate the following needed improvements: 
  • Updated the taxonomy for clarity and precision. Projects will now be classified as frameworks, components, templates and tools instead of just frameworks and tools.  We made a guess as to where each project would like to be, realizing the boundaries can be fuzzy.  If you feel they should be grouped differently let's discuss that, but we can accommodate some movement within the layout. 
  • We placed in some blank generic logos to accommodate anticipated expansion.  When we publish this formally we will remove the generic logos; it's merely intended to show where we'd expand.
  • Illustrate a broader view of the various ways to participate in the greenhouse by including a sort of foundation floor in this greenhouse to include Labs, as well as a community section including WGs, SIGs, Meetups and HGF.  If this results in a graphic that's too tall or busy for, say, a slide in a presentation slide deck, this section can be moved to its own slide, which is why we show it with and without.  It's anticipated that we'd make each of the individual components here look better before final push, perhaps by coming up with logos for each or at least different colors.
  • Emphasize the frameworks, as they are likely the first projects we want people new to HL to know about, and they pull together many of the other pieces as components.  We still need better taglines for each framework but those can be improved over time.
  • We removed the taglines for the other projects for visual simplicity; perhaps on the website when showing this graphic we can have a roll-over that shows more depth on each project before shooting you over to the project's particular home page.
  • Remove the greyed out other LF projects and "Community Stewardship and Technical, Legal, Marketing, Organizational Infrastructure" copy to avoid this looking like a sea of small print as the greenhouse grows.
Please see the revised graphics below.  We invite you to share your comments on this thread or on the call Thursday, and either then or in the near future a vote reflecting the TSC's acceptance.
 
 
 
HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_Community.png
 
 
 
 
 
HL_Greenhouse_New_V4_NoCommunity.png
 
 
 
I didn't turn this into a Wiki page just yet as I didn't want anyone to be confused that this was anything other than a draft, but if I'm being too cautious on that front and someone else fels it would be useful to do that, feel free.
 
We'll look at checking in the source materials for this chart and the logo into the wiki or GH repo.
 
Thanks!
 
Brian

 

--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
 


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Brian Behlendorf
 

Hah.  Yeah, that may be worth making more explicit - the greenhouse image is something we use frequently when talking to people about our heterogeneous community, the fact that we have multiple, sometimes overlapping projects, each with their own set of developers and idea about what needs to be built, but who view themselves as part of a larger entity, Hyperledger.  Initially it was about making it clear that HL is more than just Fabric, though Fabric is clearly an important piece.  Yes, at some risk of NASCAR.  :)  From there we tend to quickly drill down into each project to talk specifics, if that's the right audience.  And to restate, it seemed clear from conversations here that "frameworks" and "tools" were not rich enough to usefully divide the set of projects anymore. 

I'd like to encourage us to view this as an incremental advance on the prior graphic; the most important thing I'd love feedback on is the taxonomy, and I think there are already some good ideas about iterating that.  More significantly different ways of mapping our community are more than welcome, like the CNCF Trail Map I posted about (or others, if anyone has another one they like).  But that can be worked on in parallel to an updated greenhouse.

Brian

On 6/12/19 1:05 PM, Dave Cecchi wrote:
Yeah obviously different audiences, which is why I asked what the audience of the Greenhouse is.  If your point is that the contributor community gets most of their information about new libraries from the greenhouse picture on the hyperledger homepage, then I'll concede and you can keep my 2 cents. Otherwise I'm gonna go ahead and use your message to fertilize my garden. IF YOU CATCH MY DRIFT

-dc


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


Re: Hyperledger taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review

Dave Cecchi
 

Yeah obviously different audiences, which is why I asked what the audience of the Greenhouse is.  If your point is that the contributor community gets most of their information about new libraries from the greenhouse picture on the hyperledger homepage, then I'll concede and you can keep my 2 cents. Otherwise I'm gonna go ahead and use your message to fertilize my garden. IF YOU CATCH MY DRIFT

-dc

1521 - 1540 of 3892