Date
1 - 4 of 4
[Hyperledger Project TSC] Proposal: Hyperledger Training Working Group
Tracy Kuhrt <tkuhrt@...>
At the Chicago Hackfest, we discussed the creation of a working group specifically focused on training material. I have drafted an initial charter for this working group, which you can find at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V2X9A2yTdHNbI1v3itspjisWashMOabHXWbxMEZFs90. I would like to receive some feedback on the charter and discuss in an upcoming TSC meeting.
Rocket.Chat: @tkuhrt
Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
One comment (I couldn't comment on the googledoc) is that I think that the scope should be limited to Hyperledger projects in Active status. I'd welcome discussion on this, but seems to me that the focus should be given to those projects that have graduated incubation.
Also, if material is developed for a given project, should the maintainers have a say in whether it is acceptable/correct? If the work reflects another WG's deliverables (e.g. arch, identity, perf&scale) should that WG have a say? Or should it be the TSC that approves? Seems like that is missing from the charter.
Thoughts?
Chris
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Tracy Kuhrt via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:
At the Chicago Hackfest, we discussed the creation of a working group specifically focused on training material. I have drafted an initial charter for this working group, which you can find at https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1V2X9A2yTdHNbI1v3itspjisWashMO abHXWbxMEZFs90. I would like to receive some feedback on the charter and discuss in an upcoming TSC meeting. Rocket.Chat: @tkuhrt
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@lists.hyperledger.org
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger- tsc
Tracy Kuhrt <tkuhrt@...>
Chris,
Thanks for the comments. I have enabled commenting on the document itself.
We do have people that are attempting to utilize projects that are in incubation mode currently for things like Hackathons. My expectation would be that the WG would be made up of contributors across all projects, regardless of where in the lifecycle the project falls. While the WG might find that the focus is given to the projects that are active, I would not want to stop people from developing training material for any of our projects.
For your second point, maybe some of the maintainers of the education repo should be chosen from the existing pool of maintainers across all projects. This would help ensure that the information that is committed to the repo is accurate.
I would love to hear additional thoughts on these or other topics related to this working group.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
One comment (I couldn't comment on the googledoc) is that I think that the scope should be limited to Hyperledger projects in Active status. I'd welcome discussion on this, but seems to me that the focus should be given to those projects that have graduated incubation.Also, if material is developed for a given project, should the maintainers have a say in whether it is acceptable/correct? If the work reflects another WG's deliverables (e.g. arch, identity, perf&scale) should that WG have a say? Or should it be the TSC that approves? Seems like that is missing from the charter.Thoughts?ChrisOn Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Tracy Kuhrt via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@lists.hyperledger.org> wrote: ______________________________At the Chicago Hackfest, we discussed the creation of a working group specifically focused on training material. I have drafted an initial charter for this working group, which you can find at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V2X9A2yTdHNbI1v3itspj isWashMOabHXWbxMEZFs90. I would like to receive some feedback on the charter and discuss in an upcoming TSC meeting. Rocket.Chat: @tkuhrt_________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...ger.org
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-t sc
Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
Tracy,
Well, while I can appreciate not wanting to discourage work... there is a reason projects go through incubation. There are no guarantees that projects that are accepted into Incubation will necessarily graduate to Active.
I guess what I am saying is that it isn't clear how the WG will prioritize its efforts and work products.
As for maintainers... interesting thought but, not sure that it scales, and just because someone is a maintainer does not necessarily make them a deep expert in every aspect of a project.
I think that we need some form of broader review of material before it is actively promoted by LF/Hyperledger.
Cheers
Chris
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Tracy Kuhrt <tkuhrt@...> wrote:
Chris,Thanks for the comments. I have enabled commenting on the document itself.We do have people that are attempting to utilize projects that are in incubation mode currently for things like Hackathons. My expectation would be that the WG would be made up of contributors across all projects, regardless of where in the lifecycle the project falls. While the WG might find that the focus is given to the projects that are active, I would not want to stop people from developing training material for any of our projects.For your second point, maybe some of the maintainers of the education repo should be chosen from the existing pool of maintainers across all projects. This would help ensure that the information that is committed to the repo is accurate.I would love to hear additional thoughts on these or other topics related to this working group.Rocket.Chat: @tkuhrtOn Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:One comment (I couldn't comment on the googledoc) is that I think that the scope should be limited to Hyperledger projects in Active status. I'd welcome discussion on this, but seems to me that the focus should be given to those projects that have graduated incubation.Also, if material is developed for a given project, should the maintainers have a say in whether it is acceptable/correct? If the work reflects another WG's deliverables (e.g. arch, identity, perf&scale) should that WG have a say? Or should it be the TSC that approves? Seems like that is missing from the charter.Thoughts?ChrisOn Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Tracy Kuhrt via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...dger.org> wrote: ______________________________At the Chicago Hackfest, we discussed the creation of a working group specifically focused on training material. I have drafted an initial charter for this working group, which you can find at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V2X9A2yTdHNbI1v3itspj isWashMOabHXWbxMEZFs90. I would like to receive some feedback on the charter and discuss in an upcoming TSC meeting. Rocket.Chat: @tkuhrt_________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...ger.org
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-t sc