Hi BitXHub Team, Thank you for your responses. It’s always nice to see more people interested in blockchain integration. At Fujitsu, we have also built a blockchain interoperability platform. It’s qui

Hi Everyone, Thanks for the informative responses. I’m with Chris here—it might be time to consider a CLA model. I highly doubt the board will let us keep doing what we’ve done so far after they look

Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the emails, and it’s great to hear from you all post-winter holidays. I had a question: has any progress been made on the DCO front? An email update would be awesome if the

I’ll be on a plane and don’t have anything new to discuss either. Let’s cancel the call. Thanks Arnaud for taking the initiative on this, rather than having a dead call. Thanks, Hart

Hi Everyone, Sorry to spam you all again, but I wanted to address some more issues and concerns about our processes. Most of this is in light of our discussion over email and in the TSC meeting last w

Hi Dan, I’m not sure I totally agree with all of these points. Maybe you can convince me otherwise, but I’m not yet convinced. I definitely agree that having a diverse contributor and maintainer base

Hi Everyone, Sorry for the incoming long wall of text. I wanted to comment on the incubation/active status debates so that hopefully we could clarify things, frustrate people less, and spend less time

+1. This is a great idea. I don’t think it hurts anyone if TSC elections have a longer voting period. And also +1 to Chris’s idea in the next email of moving the election a little bit later. The curre

Hi Everyone, Some points on this: I don’t think it matters what we name these groups. If we want to keep the name of “working group,” that’s fine. The main point we have noticed is that long-term, wor

Hi Mark, As someone who regularly participates in the architecture WG, I don’t think it has the proper set of people right now to drive something like this. What we would really need for this hypothet

+1 to this idea. Thanks for bringing it up Shawn. I think it would be a great idea to have such a library, as long as we can reasonably infer that people will be able to agree on a consensus interface

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

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

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

Hi Everyone, Chris, thanks for bringing this up. This makes a lot of sense for us as a community. We are a far bigger organization than when we started, and it only makes sense to increase representat

Hi Brian, I wanted to follow up and say that I think a separate graphic depicting the structure of the community would be a great idea. If we do this right, it would help new people find who they need

First of all, are we changing the time? I’ll be in Tokyo but my availability is a little bit dicey, as I have a lot of meetings planned. Thanks, Hart

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for the response. Your charter suggestion is perfect—that’s exactly what I had in mind, and more well-written than what I suggested earlier. Thanks, Hart

Hi Dan, No, not the architecture working group. While it is wonderful, It is not a research-based group. I think this new “[*]group” should have two major focuses: (1) discussing research topics, idea

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for the response. You are correct: I had, in fact, envisioned this as a bridge between maintainers/developers and researchers: researchers could contribute relevant research (and cod