Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

June 23, 2016 (7:00am - 8:30am PT)

via GoToMeeting

TSC Members

Resources:

• Github:  www.github.com/hyperledger

• Wiki:  https://github.com/hyperledger/hyperledger/wiki

• IRC:  #hyperledger on freenode.net (has Meetbot)

• Public lists:  lists.hyperledger.org

• Slack:  https://slack.hyperledger.org/ (self-generated invites)

• Information on the TSC Members can be found at https://www.hyperledger.org/about/tsc

• Meetings:  https://github.com/hyperledger/hyperledger/wiki/PublicMeetingCalendar

Agenda

• Action Item review

• TSC Composition (steady state) -- initial discussion

• Update on the Fabric v0.5 developer preview release

• WG Updates

Action Item Review

• Hackathon Update

• July 26-27, San Francisco, REGISTER NOW

• [August, Virtual] http://doodle.com/poll/r4ftyyvshef2rn6z

• [September/October, Amsterdam] http://doodle.com/poll/y9h2e497essf9pg9

• June 30th TSC meeting -- several have already indicated they will be out of office.

• Consensus - CANCEL meeting

• Exit criteria (Arnaud)

• Discussion

• Brian:  On page 2, used HIP (means “improvement proposal”) tends to be about specific features or pull requests, as opposed to projects.  It is a codebase/community that goes through this lifecycle, so maybe reserve HIP for things more specifically inside of each project.

• Arnaud:  You are talking about Jeremy’s table.  This has not been fully reviewed by group, trying to figure out how to factor in.

• Brian:  Maybe just focus on first 2 pages for now.  Also, slight sense that “mature” may signal that innovation has ended.  For example, Apache calls them top-level projects (TLPs).  Is there a better word to use?

• Arnaud:  We have project lifecycle doc that was reviewed/approved and that uses “mature.”

• Jeremy:  Concerns about “mature” and “project” too.

• Brian:  Yes, need to get taxonomy down.

• Arnaud:  We also have a proposal template that refers to these terms.  So, would need to change in multiple places if that decision is made.

• Brian:   If people want to put together a proposal, please post to TSC list.

• Jeremy:  Splitting out base vs. additional requirements is fine.  Seems to be consensus between project lifecycle and product lifecycle.  Where do we want to put this?  In requirements?  I.e. scalability, security, etc.

• Arnaud:  First list has “sufficient test coverage” -- this is important, if you want to claim that you can graduate from incubation, you should have test coverage under control (not that you have achieved a certain level)... same for scalability.

• Vipin:  The more you address in software and public release notes and documentation, the more people will be inclined to use it under the parameters you specify.

• ACTION:  Arnaud to fine tune Exit Criteria.

• Hyperledger Release Taxonomy v0.1 (Brian)

• Brian provided an overview of Hyperledger Release Taxonomy v0.1

• ACTION:  Technical Community to review, add comments, and iterate on the Hyperledger Release Taxonomy v0.1.

TSC Composition

• Composition (per Charter)

• Startup Period: During the first six (6) months after project launch, the TSC voting members shall consist of one (1) appointed representative from each Premier Member and each Top Level Project Maintainer, provided that no company (including related companies or affiliates under common control) shall have more than three (3) votes on the TSC.

• Steady State: After the Startup Period, there shall be a nomination and election period for electing Contributors or Maintainers to the TSC. The TSC voting members shall consist of eleven (11) elected Contributors or Maintainers chosen by the Active Contributors. An Active Contributor is defined as any Contributor who has had a contribution accepted into the codebase during the prior twelve (12) months. The TSC shall approve the process and timing for nominations and elections held on an annual basis.

• Contributors: anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase.

• Maintainers: Contributors who have the ability to commit code and contributions to a project’s main branch on an HLP project. A Contributor may become a Maintainer by a majority approval of the existing Maintainers.

• August 11th would be 6 months from the initial TSC meeting on February 11th.

• ACTION:  Create initial draft to establish process, timeline, and criteria for electing the steady state TSC and TSC Chair.

Update on the Fabric v0.5 developer preview release (Sheehan)

• Main intended goals were to stabilize a set of capabilities out there so that devs can try it out.  Also, exercise the release process.

• Primary new feature is the client SDK written in Node.js

• https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/wiki/Fabric-Releases

• https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/wiki/Release-Process

WG Updates

• Requirements WG (Oleg Abdrashitov)

• https://github.com/hyperledger/hyperledger/wiki/Requirements-WG-Status-2016-Jun-13

• https://github.com/hyperledger/hyperledger/wiki/Requirements-WG-Status-2016-Jun-20

• Architecture WG (Ram Jagadeesan, via email)

• The Arch-WG met last Friday along with the vHack and again on our regular slot on Wed.

• We seem to be converging on a common functional definition of the consensus and smart-contract layers, that will allow us to have a truly pluggable consensus layer that accommodates different consensus algorithms.

• As we develop the common definition, both the new fabric consensus proposal and the POET teams are testing it bottom-up to see if their designs can fit or can be evolved to meet the common framework.

• We will try to have another off-cycle meeting next week to see if we can reach a definitive point on this topic.

• Whitepaper WG (Dave Voell)

• Whitepaper Draft v1.0.1 (published June 22, 2016)

• Please provide feedback to the Whitepaper working group through our Feedback Form

• Feedback submissions are available for view here

• Identity WG (Christopher Allen)

• No update.

• CI WG (Chris Ferris)

• Brian:  The Linux Foundation has access to a 1,000 node cluster for CNCF and have ability to deploy jobs to it -- idea is that it might help with testing.  Could wire into a regular process.  Would like to turn performance testing into something we do for all projects.  Anyone interested in working on performance testing? Please contact Brian or Chris directly.

Action Items

• ACTION:  Hackathon updates and planning

• ACTION:  Arnaud to fine tune Exit Criteria

• ACTION:  Create initial draft to establish process, timeline, and criteria for electing the steady state TSC and TSC Chair.
• ACTION:  Technical Community to review, add comments, and iterate on the Hyperledger Release Taxonomy v0.1.