1. toc@lists.hyperledger.org
  2. Messages
   Date   
Re: Vote on Transact Proposal

hmontgomery@us.fujitsu.com <hmontgomery@...>
 

+1 from me.

 

Thanks everyone!  Looking forward to more interoperability.

 

Hart

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Middleton, Dan
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 7:50 AM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Vote on Transact Proposal

 

Good discussion on the Transact proposal yesterday. A clear theme was the cross project-interest in and support of the proposal.

https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/tsc/message/2161

 

TSC Members, please reply to this thread with your vote by May 1, 2019.

 

+1 In favor

0 Abstaining

-1 Against

 

My vote is +1 in favor of the proposal.

 

Regards,

Dan Middleton

TSC Chair
Re: Hyperledger Aries

Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

I received a few questions, so to clarify, there is no active vote yet for the Aries proposal.

The proposal needs to be read by the TSC members and appropriate amount of time for discussion and feedback.

 

From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Ry Jones <rjones@...>
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 12:05 PM
To: Mark Wagner <mwagner114@...>
Cc: Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>, Nathan George <nathan.george@...>, Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger Aries

 

Yes, the vote is in the mailing list :)

 

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:01 AM Mark Wagner <mwagner114@...> wrote:

so, to be clear, the checkbox says we have reviewed it but we still need a vote to accept this as project, correct?

 

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 11:38 Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...> wrote:

Remember TSC members to check your name off on the Bottom after you have read the proposal!

 

Thank you!

 

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:10 AM Nathan George <nathan.george@...> wrote:

As heard today's TSC call, the Hyperledger Aries project proposal is up on the Hyperledger wiki here: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Hyperledger+Aries+Proposal

 

We have been discussing launching this as a project since the hackfest in Montreal last October.  Since then the Indy community has been able to build an active community of contributors working on protocol standardization for the peer-to-peer information exchange described in the proposal.  We have been waiting for a release of Ursa to avoid having too many moving project components at the same time.  With Ursa 0.1.1 underway it is time to undertake this next phase in development.

 

We have many interested parties participating in the Internet Identity Workshop in Mountain View next. week, and are very eager for your feedback and approval to help socialize the new project and recruit contributors beyond those already participating at Hyperledger.

 

-Nathan

 

 



--

Silona Bonewald

VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger

Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona

The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org



--

Ry Jones

Community Architect, Hyperledger
Re: Vote on Transact Proposal

Shawn Amundson
 

I wasn't aware of this process. I can transfer the doc there next week post-vote with the final content. Should we re-submit older project proposals as well so there is one list, at least for all the accepted/current projects? It would seem reasonable to have a single place with all of them for reference when writing future proposals.

-Shawn

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...> wrote:
Please do the form and make the proposal available to all.

Many of our members cannot access google docs.

Thank you,
Silona


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...> wrote:

Good discussion on the Transact proposal yesterday. A clear theme was the cross project-interest in and support of the proposal.

https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/tsc/message/2161

 

TSC Members, please reply to this thread with your vote by May 1, 2019.

 

+1 In favor

0 Abstaining

-1 Against

 

My vote is +1 in favor of the proposal.

 

Regards,

Dan Middleton

TSC Chair



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

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

Please do the form and make the proposal available to all.

Many of our members cannot access google docs.

Thank you,
Silona


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...> wrote:

Good discussion on the Transact proposal yesterday. A clear theme was the cross project-interest in and support of the proposal.

https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/tsc/message/2161

 

TSC Members, please reply to this thread with your vote by May 1, 2019.

 

+1 In favor

0 Abstaining

-1 Against

 

My vote is +1 in favor of the proposal.

 

Regards,

Dan Middleton

TSC Chair



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

Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

Good discussion on the Transact proposal yesterday. A clear theme was the cross project-interest in and support of the proposal.

https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/tsc/message/2161

 

TSC Members, please reply to this thread with your vote by May 1, 2019.

 

+1 In favor

0 Abstaining

-1 Against

 

My vote is +1 in favor of the proposal.

 

Regards,

Dan Middleton

TSC Chair
Re: Hyperledger Aries

Ry Jones
 

Yes, the vote is in the mailing list :)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:01 AM Mark Wagner <mwagner114@...> wrote:
so, to be clear, the checkbox says we have reviewed it but we still need a vote to accept this as project, correct?

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 11:38 Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...> wrote:
Remember TSC members to check your name off on the Bottom after you have read the proposal!

Thank you!

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:10 AM Nathan George <nathan.george@...> wrote:
As heard today's TSC call, the Hyperledger Aries project proposal is up on the Hyperledger wiki here: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Hyperledger+Aries+Proposal

We have been discussing launching this as a project since the hackfest in Montreal last October.  Since then the Indy community has been able to build an active community of contributors working on protocol standardization for the peer-to-peer information exchange described in the proposal.  We have been waiting for a release of Ursa to avoid having too many moving project components at the same time.  With Ursa 0.1.1 underway it is time to undertake this next phase in development.

We have many interested parties participating in the Internet Identity Workshop in Mountain View next. week, and are very eager for your feedback and approval to help socialize the new project and recruit contributors beyond those already participating at Hyperledger.

-Nathan




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



--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger
Re: Hyperledger Aries

Mark Wagner
 

so, to be clear, the checkbox says we have reviewed it but we still need a vote to accept this as project, correct?


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 11:38 Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...> wrote:
Remember TSC members to check your name off on the Bottom after you have read the proposal!

Thank you!

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:10 AM Nathan George <nathan.george@...> wrote:
As heard today's TSC call, the Hyperledger Aries project proposal is up on the Hyperledger wiki here: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Hyperledger+Aries+Proposal

We have been discussing launching this as a project since the hackfest in Montreal last October.  Since then the Indy community has been able to build an active community of contributors working on protocol standardization for the peer-to-peer information exchange described in the proposal.  We have been waiting for a release of Ursa to avoid having too many moving project components at the same time.  With Ursa 0.1.1 underway it is time to undertake this next phase in development.

We have many interested parties participating in the Internet Identity Workshop in Mountain View next. week, and are very eager for your feedback and approval to help socialize the new project and recruit contributors beyond those already participating at Hyperledger.

-Nathan




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

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

Remember TSC members to check your name off on the Bottom after you have read the proposal!

Thank you!


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:10 AM Nathan George <nathan.george@...> wrote:
As heard today's TSC call, the Hyperledger Aries project proposal is up on the Hyperledger wiki here: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Hyperledger+Aries+Proposal

We have been discussing launching this as a project since the hackfest in Montreal last October.  Since then the Indy community has been able to build an active community of contributors working on protocol standardization for the peer-to-peer information exchange described in the proposal.  We have been waiting for a release of Ursa to avoid having too many moving project components at the same time.  With Ursa 0.1.1 underway it is time to undertake this next phase in development.

We have many interested parties participating in the Internet Identity Workshop in Mountain View next. week, and are very eager for your feedback and approval to help socialize the new project and recruit contributors beyond those already participating at Hyperledger.

-Nathan




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

Nathan George <nathan.george@...>
 

As heard today's TSC call, the Hyperledger Aries project proposal is up on the Hyperledger wiki here: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Hyperledger+Aries+Proposal

We have been discussing launching this as a project since the hackfest in Montreal last October.  Since then the Indy community has been able to build an active community of contributors working on protocol standardization for the peer-to-peer information exchange described in the proposal.  We have been waiting for a release of Ursa to avoid having too many moving project components at the same time.  With Ursa 0.1.1 underway it is time to undertake this next phase in development.

We have many interested parties participating in the Internet Identity Workshop in Mountain View next. week, and are very eager for your feedback and approval to help socialize the new project and recruit contributors beyond those already participating at Hyperledger.

-Nathan
Re: Flying during meeting + transact comment

Silas Davis
 

Oops left off the transact comment which is that I am broadly supportive of the proposal. 


On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, 14:34 Silas Davis, <silas@...> wrote:
Apologies from me too, I will be flying during this week's meeting.

Silas
Flying during meeting + transact comment

Silas Davis
 

Apologies from me too, I will be flying during this week's meeting.

Silas
regrets

Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

traveling tomorrow

Cheers

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Fellow, CTO Open Technology
IBM Digital Business Group, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
Re: Encourage more people for WG meetings

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

One of the things that has worked well in the past is getting everyone on the wiki.  Not just Async but also on the live meetings.

You can concurrently edit with up to 12 people.  So maybe not everyone but close for most meetings.  And I believe Vipin is experimenting with Time zones.  So if both groups are literally on the same page... that can help. 

Though yes - you will have to configure your notifications in Confluence properly - lest your inbox gets flooded.

Cheers,
Silona


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:49 AM Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:05 AM mark wagner <mwagner@...> wrote:
Baohua

Thanks for the feedback. This is a topic that Ry and I are on the hook to bring up to the TSC so its a good starting point. Lets continue to roll here and hopefully more people on this list will jump in!

Many of the WG meetings are based on times convenient to the US, being able to hold meetings at different times should help ease the barrier to participation.  Vipin ( The Trail Blazer ) is trying this with the Identity WG. This is a strategy that has worked well in other organizations. However in many of those situations, you needed to attend meetings in order to retain voting rights. We can't really do that in most of our WGs as they are mostly volunteer efforts.

I think that another way to address things from your list would be to hold less meetings and do more work via the mailing lists. This allows more people to participate at "convenient" times. Although it won't solve the language barrier for all, written language may be more enticing then spoken language (please correct me if I am wrong on this one) for some people,  The drawback with email is things move slower then a verbal meeting. People still need to know how to get plugged into the WG.

As far as getting information out there, I know I send the PSWG agenda to the pswg mailing list. If you aren't on that list you don't get the reminder / agenda.   I have not yet learned Confluence so the PSWG section of the wiki is less than ideal.

In general ,the main information model for Hyperledger seems to be a "pull" model. You need to know what mailing lists to sign up for, or you need to follow the wiki for changes. Perhaps there should be a periodic (monthly?) email to the "main" member list reminding people of the SIGS and WG and the meeting times. Also, the calendar on the old wiki had a way to plug in your timezone and see the calendar in "local" time.  Can that be added to the confluence calendar ?

I think that the working groups need to make sure that they are somewhat aligned to projects. The PSWG is aligned with Caliper but we should be doing more to align with the other frameworks and libraries. iirc, at least Fabric, Sawtooth, and Ursa have spent time on performance tests w/o any real interaction with the PSWG. Hopefully the PSWG can get to a point where we can be useful to the projects.

So a bit longer then I intended, hopefully you are still here. Lets use this as a starting point for discussions. What do others think ?

Respectfully

-mark

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:12 AM Baohua Yang <yangbaohua@...> wrote:
Dear all

At last week's TSC call, Vipin raised the questions on how to encourage more people to attend working group meetings (especially those from Asia).

Here are some feedbacks collected at the TWGC meeting.

Items that may block the attending:

* Do not see the information (We can consider to promote every WG and meeting information more);
* The time is inconvenient (Seems difficult to coordinate, e.g., some prefer working time, others prefer weekends);
* Do not know what to say (Attending would be a good start);
* Language problem (No quick ideas).

Besides, it is reported sometimes accessing rocketchat has issues.
--
Best wishes!

Baohua Yang



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



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


--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org
Re: Encourage more people for WG meetings

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:05 AM mark wagner <mwagner@...> wrote:
Baohua

Thanks for the feedback. This is a topic that Ry and I are on the hook to bring up to the TSC so its a good starting point. Lets continue to roll here and hopefully more people on this list will jump in!

Many of the WG meetings are based on times convenient to the US, being able to hold meetings at different times should help ease the barrier to participation.  Vipin ( The Trail Blazer ) is trying this with the Identity WG. This is a strategy that has worked well in other organizations. However in many of those situations, you needed to attend meetings in order to retain voting rights. We can't really do that in most of our WGs as they are mostly volunteer efforts.

I think that another way to address things from your list would be to hold less meetings and do more work via the mailing lists. This allows more people to participate at "convenient" times. Although it won't solve the language barrier for all, written language may be more enticing then spoken language (please correct me if I am wrong on this one) for some people,  The drawback with email is things move slower then a verbal meeting. People still need to know how to get plugged into the WG.

As far as getting information out there, I know I send the PSWG agenda to the pswg mailing list. If you aren't on that list you don't get the reminder / agenda.   I have not yet learned Confluence so the PSWG section of the wiki is less than ideal.

In general ,the main information model for Hyperledger seems to be a "pull" model. You need to know what mailing lists to sign up for, or you need to follow the wiki for changes. Perhaps there should be a periodic (monthly?) email to the "main" member list reminding people of the SIGS and WG and the meeting times. Also, the calendar on the old wiki had a way to plug in your timezone and see the calendar in "local" time.  Can that be added to the confluence calendar ?

I think that the working groups need to make sure that they are somewhat aligned to projects. The PSWG is aligned with Caliper but we should be doing more to align with the other frameworks and libraries. iirc, at least Fabric, Sawtooth, and Ursa have spent time on performance tests w/o any real interaction with the PSWG. Hopefully the PSWG can get to a point where we can be useful to the projects.

So a bit longer then I intended, hopefully you are still here. Lets use this as a starting point for discussions. What do others think ?

Respectfully

-mark

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:12 AM Baohua Yang <yangbaohua@...> wrote:
Dear all

At last week's TSC call, Vipin raised the questions on how to encourage more people to attend working group meetings (especially those from Asia).

Here are some feedbacks collected at the TWGC meeting.

Items that may block the attending:

* Do not see the information (We can consider to promote every WG and meeting information more);
* The time is inconvenient (Seems difficult to coordinate, e.g., some prefer working time, others prefer weekends);
* Do not know what to say (Attending would be a good start);
* Language problem (No quick ideas).

Besides, it is reported sometimes accessing rocketchat has issues.
--
Best wishes!

Baohua Yang



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



--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org
Re: Encourage more people for WG meetings

mark wagner <mwagner@...>
 

Baohua

Thanks for the feedback. This is a topic that Ry and I are on the hook to bring up to the TSC so its a good starting point. Lets continue to roll here and hopefully more people on this list will jump in!

Many of the WG meetings are based on times convenient to the US, being able to hold meetings at different times should help ease the barrier to participation.  Vipin ( The Trail Blazer ) is trying this with the Identity WG. This is a strategy that has worked well in other organizations. However in many of those situations, you needed to attend meetings in order to retain voting rights. We can't really do that in most of our WGs as they are mostly volunteer efforts.

I think that another way to address things from your list would be to hold less meetings and do more work via the mailing lists. This allows more people to participate at "convenient" times. Although it won't solve the language barrier for all, written language may be more enticing then spoken language (please correct me if I am wrong on this one) for some people,  The drawback with email is things move slower then a verbal meeting. People still need to know how to get plugged into the WG.

As far as getting information out there, I know I send the PSWG agenda to the pswg mailing list. If you aren't on that list you don't get the reminder / agenda.   I have not yet learned Confluence so the PSWG section of the wiki is less than ideal.

In general ,the main information model for Hyperledger seems to be a "pull" model. You need to know what mailing lists to sign up for, or you need to follow the wiki for changes. Perhaps there should be a periodic (monthly?) email to the "main" member list reminding people of the SIGS and WG and the meeting times. Also, the calendar on the old wiki had a way to plug in your timezone and see the calendar in "local" time.  Can that be added to the confluence calendar ?

I think that the working groups need to make sure that they are somewhat aligned to projects. The PSWG is aligned with Caliper but we should be doing more to align with the other frameworks and libraries. iirc, at least Fabric, Sawtooth, and Ursa have spent time on performance tests w/o any real interaction with the PSWG. Hopefully the PSWG can get to a point where we can be useful to the projects.

So a bit longer then I intended, hopefully you are still here. Lets use this as a starting point for discussions. What do others think ?

Respectfully

-mark


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:12 AM Baohua Yang <yangbaohua@...> wrote:
Dear all

At last week's TSC call, Vipin raised the questions on how to encourage more people to attend working group meetings (especially those from Asia).

Here are some feedbacks collected at the TWGC meeting.

Items that may block the attending:

* Do not see the information (We can consider to promote every WG and meeting information more);
* The time is inconvenient (Seems difficult to coordinate, e.g., some prefer working time, others prefer weekends);
* Do not know what to say (Attending would be a good start);
* Language problem (No quick ideas).

Besides, it is reported sometimes accessing rocketchat has issues.
--
Best wishes!

Baohua Yang



--
Mark Wagner
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Performance and Scalability
Red Hat, Inc
Encourage more people for WG meetings

Baohua Yang
 

Dear all

At last week's TSC call, Vipin raised the questions on how to encourage more people to attend working group meetings (especially those from Asia).

Here are some feedbacks collected at the TWGC meeting.

Items that may block the attending:

* Do not see the information (We can consider to promote every WG and meeting information more);
* The time is inconvenient (Seems difficult to coordinate, e.g., some prefer working time, others prefer weekends);
* Do not know what to say (Attending would be a good start);
* Language problem (No quick ideas).

Besides, it is reported sometimes accessing rocketchat has issues.
--
Best wishes!

Baohua Yang
Agenda is posted

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

A reminder to read up and add links to the TSC agenda.


Cheers!

--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org
Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Hi,
Some of the ideas in today's call were
a. Look at Emerald and suggest ways in which this particular front-end can be hooked into Caliper, we have to look at duplication in both these libraries as well as the interface to decide whether this is worthwhile.
b. What does it take (smart contract wise)  to have Emerald tests run.
c. TPC/STAC Mark says that they run at a glacial pace plus they do not admit non-members (STAC does not) and they dont have Blockchain efforts
d. We spoke about Mark's presentation on May 7th and that he needed volunteers to run the call.
e. We spoke about Identity capabilities in Openshift as well as Oracle Blockchain in a side conversation
f. Spoke about having a quick look at Emerald.

A preliminary look at the github/gitlab repos say.
That you need the following capability (smart contracts etc.) in the platform you are going to test:

"In order for the test harness to measure the performance of a blockchain payents platform. The platform must support the following use cases:

  • Create several accounts that can store tokens
  • Issue tokens to specific accounts
  • Transfer tokens from account to account between nodes.

The third use case is what is measured by this benchmark."

So you have to have a solution that contains these actions

The hyperledger lab is empty except for the Readme file (https://github.com/hyperledger-labs/payments-performance-test-harness)
 
Conclusions:
  1. It would require considerable effort to architect a solution that interacts with caliper; there are also some duplicate facilities around load generation.
  2. The multi location load generation is neat
  3. There is some neat stuff there for the payments use case, since it follows ISO standards for payments payload.
  4. In order to run it against HL Fabric or HL Sawtooth or anything else the DLTs need a prebuilt payment solution (accounts storing tokens, issue tokens, transfer tokens between accounts)
  5. HL Fabric has the new FabToken project maybe this can help
  6. Without Mark Simpson to guide us it would take resources that we do not currently have. Caliper guys have to opine too.
  7. In short not now, not with what we have in PSWG is my conclusion- obviously I am willing to learn if someone says why this isn't so.
Best,
Vipin

dlt.nyc
Vipin Bharathan
Enterprise Blockchain Consultant
vip@...

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of mark wagner via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <mwagner=redhat.com@...>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:38 AM
To: Dan Hyperledger
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG
 
Hi Dan

Welcome back!

While I agree that integrity and availability are important and need to be quantified, I think that we still need baseline metrics to do so. "This is what the system does with faults, this is what happens when faults are introduced. "

One of the topics we had previously discussed was the Emerald benchmark that Mark Simpson had been involved in. It is now a Hyperledger lab. It is designed to measure payments. Should we consider using it with Caliper as our next deliverable ?

One of reasons for suggesting this is that it is already defined and has working code, abeit for Corda. However, by taking something that we know works, it should save us some time. The fact that it is a Hyperledger lab means that the code should be clean to start. Attila / Imre, did you ever get time to evaluate how difficult it would be to use emerald benchmark with Caliper ?  Mark Simpson, feel encouraged to jump in here as well!,

With respect to having TPC, SPEC etc to own a benchmark, I have mixed feelings. Red Hat is involved in both organizations and neither appears to be working with blockchain at this point in time. Based on my personal experience with the development of SPECVirt and SPECCloud, it will be at least a year before there is anything usable. Salman do you concur ?

Also, both orgs have fairly stringent rules and use policies, so a benchmark is typically not freely available for anyone to run. So there is no open source component.

Anyway, enough rambling. What do others think ?

-mark



On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:10 PM Dan Hyperledger <dan.hyperledger@...> wrote:

With respect to PSWG specifically, I think the most significant thing that working group can do is mature our ability to quantify integrity and availability.


The thing that makes blockchain different from other enterprise transaction systems is the use of decentralization in protecting the integrity and availability of the system.


The first output of the PSWG was a metrics document that made strides in measuring performance in that context. What does it mean if a network can execute 1000 TPS but can be taken down by a single node failure? The best we could do was be clear that performance should always be published in the context of the size of the network (as a proxy for a measure of availability and integrity).


We had a lot of discussion about measurements in the presence of faults. We even had some material started by a few of our contributors and while it wasn’t a fit for that draft of the metrics document, it seemed like a good seed for the next round of work.


A different direction of exploration is in workload design. In this case contributors from companies adopting blockchain are invaluable to help inform actual workload characteristics. One reason I don’t list benchmark design with higher importance is I believe it’s better developed by an organization like TPC.


Regards,

Dan Middleton


On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:44 AM Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
Hello Mark and others,

We have been having similar issues with the Architecture and Identity Working Groups.

You do not join a WG to mature into a developer for a particular solution. The work in a WG is complementary to the work in a project. You could do both. The WGs are not just about "documentation".

I have been thinking about the function of Working Groups. In my view it is the following.

The Working Groups were meant to be technical and focused on cross-cutting or primary concerns; like Architecture, Identity, Performance & Scale and now Smart Contracts.

Building stuff does require thinking about what to build. The WGs were meant to be a place where technical concerns from the various projects are aired out and where the collective wisdom of the WG participants could inform us all and prevent the isolation of frameworks from each other. In other words what makes Hyperledger, Hyperledger (beyond a single ledger); to connect projects together. This is evident in the papers published by the Architecture and PSWG groups.  

The Identity WG for example had people from Legal, Technical, Business as well as practitioners from  Identity specific areas all coming together to discuss topics like GDPR, Aadhar etc. and its relevance to the DLTs we are building. We brought Indy into the mix and are now working on L2 protocols in the Identity space. There is no comparable venue in HL for this. Somehow this message has been diluted and projects do not take this seriously enough nor is it effectively communicated.

The WGs were never highlighted in the wiki, and their benefits and contributions were seen as less than "landing patches".  

I see similarities in the way SIGs are forming now. In contrast, to the WGs the SIGs focus on verticals. WGs focus on horizontals. Both are needed. There should be collaboration between the SIGs and the WGs. 

Technical Working Group China and now one for India were formed because of differences in time zones and languages; and they are like all the WGs and SIGs rolled into one for the region. 

So now for some suggestions and ideas to make Working Groups more effective and encourage participation. This is based on conversations I have had with many people:

- It is important to do cross SIG/cross Regional/cross WG presentations
-Promotion in wiki, during bootcamps, messaging and Community Architect Support
-Experimentation with meeting times to encourage worldwide participation
-For PSWG, engagement with TPC, STAC, actual functional use case(Provenance) to look for numbers to measure, Look at ExactPro methodology etc.
-Engagement with Architecture for improvements in Performance like the waterloo project and implications on DLT architecture. What are the implications for other DLTs (other than Fabric)

Hope this long email may be of some use in rebooting the WGs and also rethinking of a more collaborative future. 

Best,
Vipin

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:22 AM Kulkarni, Amol <amol.kulkarni@...> wrote:

One of the issues with the WGs as they’re currently set up is that interested folks from Asia cannot call into them.

 

The PSWG, for example, currently meets from 6:30 – 7:30 pm India time. While I’m working on performance and benchmarking specifically, my colleagues and I cannot call into any of these meetings. Perhaps rescheduling meetings to encourage participants from different geos might be one way to increase participation in WGs.

 

Amol

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Silona Bonewald
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:49 AM
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
Cc: Todd Little <todd.little@...>; Montgomery, Hart <hmontgomery@...>; mark wagner <mwagner@...>; perf-and-scale-wg@...; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

The Technical Working Group China participated in the HKBootcamp and was highly visible.  I think it is a good idea for other working groups to think about how to recruit and engage more with the community thru events like Bootcamps etc. 

 

For example, my team has been discussing with the Learning Materials Working Group about how they will recruit.  First from the projects themselves, and then how do we help them market themselves to get more volunteers?  Of course, having a good landing page on the wiki helps!

 

Also, Hyperledger has been starting up a bunch of SIGs.  I believe some people are moving to those SIGs.  And Ecosystem team is actively recruiting new members to participate there first.  Should we look at how we cross "advertise" internally?  Or look at how we "advertise" to new members and externally.

 

What other paths to recruitment should we explore? 

 

Silona

 

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:15 PM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:

Todd, the Fabric maintainers would welcome additional help in documenting Fabric or providing and curating samples. They don’t write themselves.

 

I tend to agree with Hart’s analysis, and while I have a regular call that conflicts, I join occasionally and am definitely interested in the subject matter.

 

I’d agree with Todd that working with a traditional benchmarking org would be good, as would input into Caliper and other performance testing efforts.

 

We aren’t yet at a point where we can effectively provide guidance on comparative performance characteristics, which is ultimately what people will be seeking.

Chris


On Mar 18, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Todd Little <todd.little@...> wrote:

Hi Hart,

I tend to agree, but I also think another factor is that as we've moved from initial versions of the various platforms to production ready platforms, people are probably getting tied up working on those production deployments.  I know for me it's mostly a matter of I participate when I don't have conflicts or not traveling.

Personally I'd like to see us move in the direction of helping some standards organizations define blockchain benchmarks that can be used to evaluate blockchain platforms, as I'm not sure we're in the business of setting those kinds of standards.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I may have asked this before, but has anyone reached out to TPC to see if they're interested in creating some blockchain benchmarks?

With respect to the documentation, agreed it's fairly weak, and in particular design documentation is sorely lacking, at least for Fabric.  I can't speak to the other platforms.  Samples/examples is another area that is pretty weak.  Our platforms are so feature rich that it's hard to pick them up without a set of rich samples/examples.

-tl

PS FWIW I'll be on the call tomorrow.

On 3/18/2019 5:28 PM, Montgomery, Hart wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

I think this is probably true for most working groups.  At least from what I’ve seen and heard (and to be fair, this is not a huge sample size), fewer people are participating in the working groups, and those who are generally are participating less.

 

I’m not sure this is a bad thing, in many cases.  I think some people have replaced spending time on working groups with time spent on regular projects.  Personally, I’ve spent less time on working group stuff since Ursa has begun (and, obviously, more time on Ursa), which is probably a kind of progression we want to encourage in Hyperledger.  Having people that come into the working groups looking to learn become regular contributors surely is a positive thing. 

 

On the other hand, as the working groups seem to focus more and more on work products—which is typically documentation--fewer people seem to be interested since there is often substantial outside work involved, and not necessarily of the fun kind.  In particular, I think every SWOT analysis we have done on Hyperledger involves documentation being listed as a weakness.   While documentation has gotten better, it’s still something that I think most people would agree needs a lot of work on most aspects of Hyperledger.

 

So, for a TL;DR:  from my viewpoint, people are leaving working groups to contribute (great!)  or avoid documentation work (not so great). 

 

Do these experiences jibe with yours (or others’)?

 

Sorry for another long email.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

 

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of mark wagner
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 12:33 PM
To: perf-and-scale-wg@...
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

Hi

 

I would like to carry this discussion mostly in the mailing lists in order to be as inclusive as possible.

 

Over the last few months attendance and participation on the Performance and Scale WG (PSWG) calls has been declining. I am wondering if we need to shift focus a bit to get more people involved and make progress.

 

There are many possible directions we can head in and I have included some thoughts here, but if others have additional ideas please feel encouraged to add them.

 

First is stay the course. We are currently struggling to get our thoughts on describing metrics for provenance captured to paper.

 

Do we want to focus more on actual performance work vs just defining metrics / use case papers. This does not need to be "just running tests".

 

We can do things like examine trade offs between different design decisions, examine different crypto solutions / technologies from a perf and scale perspective, help understand cost performance tradeoffs.

 

Perhaps we help spin up testnets and drive testing of different DLT frameworks ?

 

Do we provide a performance analysis service to the different projects that is based on architecture decisions. Perhaps something similar to what several research students have done (Harish and his team, FastFabric, etc).

 

I am trying to cut a wide swath here to avoid limiting peoples thoughts, so any and all comments are encouraged. If you have not been involved in the PSWG and would be interested in participating if we did "X" then speak up!

 

thanks

 

-mark

--

Mark Wagner

Chair, Performance and Scale Working Group

 



--

Silona Bonewald

VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger

Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona

The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org



--
Mark Wagner
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Performance and Scalability
Red Hat, Inc
Re: Hyperledger Indy Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thu, 04/25/2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-reminder

Dorothy Cheng <dcheng@...>
 

Dear sender

Thanks for your email.

Hong Kong office is closed from 19-22 April for Easter holidays. I will response to you on 23 April. Thanks for your patience.

Regards
Dorothy Cheng
Marketing and PR Manager, Asia Pacific - Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation APAC
Hyperledger Indy Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thu, 04/25/2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-reminder

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Reminder:
Hyperledger Indy Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 25 April 2019

Organizer:
community-architects@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Indy update to the TSC was due April 22, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on April 25, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.

View Event

1721 - 1740 of 3905