TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.


Vipin Bharathan
 

Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process. 
  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community. 
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups. 
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same. 

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin


Arnaud Le Hors
 

The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process. 
  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community. 
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups. 
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same. 

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin





Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

That is correct, Arnaud.

The board is also looking into how to better guide the SIG process so that it is supporting the projects. I expect we’ll have an update on that next quarter.

 

Regards,

 

Dan Middleton

Principal Engineer

Intel

 

 

From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 9:54 AM
To: Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...





Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process. 

  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community. 
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups. 
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups

Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same. 

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin




Vipin Bharathan
 

Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process. 
  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community. 
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups. 
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same. 

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin





Arnaud Le Hors
 

Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...




Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process. 
  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community. 
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups. 
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same. 

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin








VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion. 
Vipin

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To: Vipin Bharathan
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
 
Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...




Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process. 
  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community. 
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups. 
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.   
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same. 

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin








Arnaud Le Hors
 

Hi Vipin,

The facts are that while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and report to them, the SIGs don't.
My point is that if the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be handled by the TSC they should then be moved (back) under its structure. It would then be natural to have them be part of the TSC but I don't think we should have something in between.

I hope this clarifies what I mean. This is not about being exclusive as much as being consistent.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        "lehors@..." <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        08/14/2019 10:50 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...




Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion.
Vipin


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
Vipin Bharathan
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 
Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <
lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.  
  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin











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

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 technical purposes.  Having or starting a SIG is much better right now than a working group:  you get all of the support from the LF that you would for a WG (meeting times, mailing list, etc.), you aren’t mandated to submit time-consuming work products to the TSC (that, let’s be honest, very few people read), and the approval process is far simpler and doesn’t require TSC approval (which could take quite some time and be a huge headache).  If you were looking to start a group—even a very technical one--why on earth would you choose a WG over a SIG? 

 

As an example, I’ve been thinking about putting together a group related to academic involvement in Hyperledger.  The goal would be to help get academics to add their work to Hyperledger (in code) and for maintainers/developers to give research problems to academics.  I’ve written up a (very rough) draft of a SIG proposal for this.  Despite the technicality involved, I chose to write a SIG draft proposal instead of a working group proposal for the very reasons I mentioned above.  While I can’t say for certain, I suspect that some of the SIGs that are popular today made the same calculation.

 

I mostly think this is relevant to the WG reform process (thanks Mic for heading this up), and I’m not a common participant in current SIGs.  But I think it is a little much to say that SIGs aren’t doing any technical work.  I don’t’ know how to quantify “technical contributions” from SIG members, though—could a frequent SIG participant comment more on this?

 

I hope this makes sense.  I guess I’m less trying to make a point about the TSC elections than about working group reform.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Arnaud Le Hors
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:04 AM
To: Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

Hi Vipin,

The facts are that while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and report to them, the SIGs don't.
My point is that if the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be handled by the TSC they should then be moved (back) under its structure. It would then be natural to have them be part of the TSC but I don't think we should have something in between.

I hope this clarifies what I mean. This is not about being exclusive as much as being consistent.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        "lehors@..." <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        08/14/2019 10:50 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...





Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion.
Vipin



From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
Vipin Bharathan
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 
Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote

  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  

Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <
lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.  

  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups

Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin










Arnaud Le Hors
 

Thanks for this interesting info but to be clear, I for one never said that SIGs aren't doing any technical work. My only point is that SIGs don't report to the TSC.
And until this changes, I think it'd be odd to have them on the TSC.

I see this as a simple governance issue. The TSC should be formed of people elected among those that are governed by the TSC.

IMO, the argument that SIGs are doing technical work is an argument to bring up in support of moving SIGs under the governance of the TSC (which would then naturally make them eligible for the TSC), not merely to be part of the TSC election.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "hmontgomery@..." <hmontgomery@...>
To:        Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        08/15/2019 05:17 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...



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 technical purposes.  Having or starting a SIG is much better right now than a working group:  you get all of the support from the LF that you would for a WG (meeting times, mailing list, etc.), you aren’t mandated to submit time-consuming work products to the TSC (that, let’s be honest, very few people read), and the approval process is far simpler and doesn’t require TSC approval (which could take quite some time and be a huge headache).  If you were looking to start a group—even a very technical one--why on earth would you choose a WG over a SIG?  

 

As an example, I’ve been thinking about putting together a group related to academic involvement in Hyperledger.  The goal would be to help get academics to add their work to Hyperledger (in code) and for maintainers/developers to give research problems to academics.  I’ve written up a (very rough) draft of a SIG proposal for this.  Despite the technicality involved, I chose to write a SIG draft proposal instead of a working group proposal for the very reasons I mentioned above.  While I can’t say for certain, I suspect that some of the SIGs that are popular today made the same calculation.

 

I mostly think this is relevant to the WG reform process (thanks Mic for heading this up), and I’m not a common participant in current SIGs.  But I think it is a little much to say that SIGs aren’t doing any technical work.  I don’t’ know how to quantify “technical contributions” from SIG members, though—could a frequent SIG participant comment more on this?

 

I hope this makes sense.  I guess I’m less trying to make a point about the TSC elections than about working group reform.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From:tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Arnaud Le Hors

Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:04 AM
To:
Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

Hi Vipin,

The facts are that while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and report to them, the SIGs don't.
My point is that if the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be handled by the TSC they should then be moved (back) under its structure. It would then be natural to have them be part of the TSC but I don't think we should have something in between.


I hope this clarifies what I mean. This is not about being exclusive as much as being consistent.


Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        
"lehors@..." <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        
"tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 10:50 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion.
Vipin



From:
tsc@...<tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
Vipin Bharathan
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote

  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <
lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.  

  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin













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

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 reform?  That would seem to make a lot of sense since, at least from my perspective, WGs are just SIGs with extra responsibilities (and not many real benefits).

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:lehors@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 8:32 AM
To: Montgomery, Hart <hmontgomery@...>
Cc: tsc@...; Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

Thanks for this interesting info but to be clear, I for one never said that SIGs aren't doing any technical work. My only point is that SIGs don't report to the TSC.
And until this changes, I think it'd be odd to have them on the TSC.

I see this as a simple governance issue. The TSC should be formed of people elected among those that are governed by the TSC.

IMO, the argument that SIGs are doing technical work is an argument to bring up in support of moving SIGs under the governance of the TSC (which would then naturally make them eligible for the TSC), not merely to be part of the TSC election.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "hmontgomery@..." <hmontgomery@...>
To:        Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        08/15/2019 05:17 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...


 

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 technical purposes.  Having or starting a SIG is much better right now than a working group:  you get all of the support from the LF that you would for a WG (meeting times, mailing list, etc.), you aren’t mandated to submit time-consuming work products to the TSC (that, let’s be honest, very few people read), and the approval process is far simpler and doesn’t require TSC approval (which could take quite some time and be a huge headache).  If you were looking to start a group—even a very technical one--why on earth would you choose a WG over a SIG?  

 

As an example, I’ve been thinking about putting together a group related to academic involvement in Hyperledger.  The goal would be to help get academics to add their work to Hyperledger (in code) and for maintainers/developers to give research problems to academics.  I’ve written up a (very rough) draft of a SIG proposal for this.  Despite the technicality involved, I chose to write a SIG draft proposal instead of a working group proposal for the very reasons I mentioned above.  While I can’t say for certain, I suspect that some of the SIGs that are popular today made the same calculation.

 

I mostly think this is relevant to the WG reform process (thanks Mic for heading this up), and I’m not a common participant in current SIGs.  But I think it is a little much to say that SIGs aren’t doing any technical work.  I don’t’ know how to quantify “technical contributions” from SIG members, though—could a frequent SIG participant comment more on this?

 

I hope this makes sense.  I guess I’m less trying to make a point about the TSC elections than about working group reform.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From:tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Arnaud Le Hors
Sent:
Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:04 AM
To:
Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

Hi Vipin,

The facts are that while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and report to them, the SIGs don't.
My point is that if the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be handled by the TSC they should then be moved (back) under its structure. It would then be natural to have them be part of the TSC but I don't think we should have something in between.


I hope this clarifies what I mean. This is not about being exclusive as much as being consistent.


Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        
"
lehors@..." <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        
"
tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 10:50 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion.
Vipin



From:
tsc@...<tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
Vipin Bharathan
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote

  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  

Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <
lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.  

  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups

Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin












Brian Behlendorf
 

SIGs aren't "represented on the TSC", but nor are Working Groups or any particular projects.  This isn't a House of Representatives nor a Senate.  TSC members are elected by voters based on whatever criteria a voter may choose, but are not there to represent one project or another - they are there as individuals, and to do right by the full Hyperledger community. 

Voter eligibility is based on connection to technical contributions anywhere across Hyperledger, as the charter says, "Anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase".  SIG participants who also contribute code or participate actively on Working Groups are already included.  If you have been technically active on a SIG but not in the above ways, you can petition to be added.

We use the following methods to collect the email addresses for valid voters:

1) those who have contributed in the last year to a github or gerrit repository (including hyperledger-labs), and we have a good email address to correlate to your gerrit or github account.  We don't always get a clean email address from GH so we are manually maintaining that list and doing our best to connect to other addresses we know of for you.

2) those who were named by Working Group chairs (deadline was last week) who have substantially participated in these working groups.

If you fall into these two buckets, then this past TUESDAY you should have received an invitation to join a groups.io (lists.hyperledger.org) mailing list set up for announcements and links related to the Election.  On Tuesday, ~500 emails went out, and right now ~150 people have confirmed the invitation and are on the list.  We received quite a few bounces, which suggests we have bad email addresses - so please search your inboxes, and spam folders, and either

1) Confirm your invitation to that list, OR

2) Ask us to resend the invitation if you know you should have qualified as above, OR

3) You have made other technical contributions elsewhere, such as on the wiki, or jira artifacts, etc.  You can fill out this form to petition to be added to the pool of voters.  Hyperledger staff will determine whether your response to the form points to valid technical contributions and can thus be added to the list.

For future elections we can consider other algorithmic methods for collecting emails and determining eligibility, beyond github/gerrit commits.

See: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/TSC+Election+2019 for more info, including how to nominate yourself for the election.

Members of that contributor-announcements list will see updates about the process soon, so please make sure you confirm membership to that list.

Hope this helps,

Brian


On 8/15/19 8:32 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
Thanks for this interesting info but to be clear, I for one never said that SIGs aren't doing any technical work. My only point is that SIGs don't report to the TSC.
And until this changes, I think it'd be odd to have them on the TSC.

I see this as a simple governance issue. The TSC should be formed of people elected among those that are governed by the TSC.

IMO, the argument that SIGs are doing technical work is an argument to bring up in support of moving SIGs under the governance of the TSC (which would then naturally make them eligible for the TSC), not merely to be part of the TSC election.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "hmontgomery@..." <hmontgomery@...>
To:        Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        08/15/2019 05:17 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...



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 technical purposes.  Having or starting a SIG is much better right now than a working group:  you get all of the support from the LF that you would for a WG (meeting times, mailing list, etc.), you aren’t mandated to submit time-consuming work products to the TSC (that, let’s be honest, very few people read), and the approval process is far simpler and doesn’t require TSC approval (which could take quite some time and be a huge headache).  If you were looking to start a group—even a very technical one--why on earth would you choose a WG over a SIG?  

 

As an example, I’ve been thinking about putting together a group related to academic involvement in Hyperledger.  The goal would be to help get academics to add their work to Hyperledger (in code) and for maintainers/developers to give research problems to academics.  I’ve written up a (very rough) draft of a SIG proposal for this.  Despite the technicality involved, I chose to write a SIG draft proposal instead of a working group proposal for the very reasons I mentioned above.  While I can’t say for certain, I suspect that some of the SIGs that are popular today made the same calculation.

 

I mostly think this is relevant to the WG reform process (thanks Mic for heading this up), and I’m not a common participant in current SIGs.  But I think it is a little much to say that SIGs aren’t doing any technical work.  I don’t’ know how to quantify “technical contributions” from SIG members, though—could a frequent SIG participant comment more on this?

 

I hope this makes sense.  I guess I’m less trying to make a point about the TSC elections than about working group reform.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From:tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Arnaud Le Hors
Sent:
Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:04 AM
To:
Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

Hi Vipin,

The facts are that while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and report to them, the SIGs don't.
My point is that if the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be handled by the TSC they should then be moved (back) under its structure. It would then be natural to have them be part of the TSC but I don't think we should have something in between.


I hope this clarifies what I mean. This is not about being exclusive as much as being consistent.


Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        
"lehors@..." <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        
"tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 10:50 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion.
Vipin



From:
tsc@...<tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
Vipin Bharathan
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote

  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <
lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.  

  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin













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


Vipin Bharathan
 

Hi,

Thanks to Brian for bringing the charter into the discussion. I had forgotten about this fragment which was used to add WG participants into the electorate, all those years ago.
Brian's quote from the charter is clear  "Anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase" Now we have to see what "codebase" means, is it only github or does it include the wiki (as documentation and other technical artifacts can be contributed there as well). In fact, nothing to do with whether they report into the TSC.
   
Github was taken as the defacto because harvesting emails from there is easier than from the other places and we are familiar with code contributions into github. 
But now that we have also moved to confluence, is harvesting a technical contributor list easier? 
How do we distinguish between technical contributions and just routine stuff like announcements and other administrivia? The more automated this is the better. Trying to get emails for regular contributors for WGs was a difficult exercise given that we had to do it in about two days.

Best,
Vipin 


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:44 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
SIGs aren't "represented on the TSC", but nor are Working Groups or any particular projects.  This isn't a House of Representatives nor a Senate.  TSC members are elected by voters based on whatever criteria a voter may choose, but are not there to represent one project or another - they are there as individuals, and to do right by the full Hyperledger community. 

Voter eligibility is based on connection to technical contributions anywhere across Hyperledger, as the charter says, "Anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase".  SIG participants who also contribute code or participate actively on Working Groups are already included.  If you have been technically active on a SIG but not in the above ways, you can petition to be added.

We use the following methods to collect the email addresses for valid voters:

1) those who have contributed in the last year to a github or gerrit repository (including hyperledger-labs), and we have a good email address to correlate to your gerrit or github account.  We don't always get a clean email address from GH so we are manually maintaining that list and doing our best to connect to other addresses we know of for you.

2) those who were named by Working Group chairs (deadline was last week) who have substantially participated in these working groups.

If you fall into these two buckets, then this past TUESDAY you should have received an invitation to join a groups.io (lists.hyperledger.org) mailing list set up for announcements and links related to the Election.  On Tuesday, ~500 emails went out, and right now ~150 people have confirmed the invitation and are on the list.  We received quite a few bounces, which suggests we have bad email addresses - so please search your inboxes, and spam folders, and either

1) Confirm your invitation to that list, OR

2) Ask us to resend the invitation if you know you should have qualified as above, OR

3) You have made other technical contributions elsewhere, such as on the wiki, or jira artifacts, etc.  You can fill out this form to petition to be added to the pool of voters.  Hyperledger staff will determine whether your response to the form points to valid technical contributions and can thus be added to the list.

For future elections we can consider other algorithmic methods for collecting emails and determining eligibility, beyond github/gerrit commits.

See: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/TSC+Election+2019 for more info, including how to nominate yourself for the election.

Members of that contributor-announcements list will see updates about the process soon, so please make sure you confirm membership to that list.

Hope this helps,

Brian


On 8/15/19 8:32 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
Thanks for this interesting info but to be clear, I for one never said that SIGs aren't doing any technical work. My only point is that SIGs don't report to the TSC.
And until this changes, I think it'd be odd to have them on the TSC.

I see this as a simple governance issue. The TSC should be formed of people elected among those that are governed by the TSC.

IMO, the argument that SIGs are doing technical work is an argument to bring up in support of moving SIGs under the governance of the TSC (which would then naturally make them eligible for the TSC), not merely to be part of the TSC election.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "hmontgomery@..." <hmontgomery@...>
To:        Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        08/15/2019 05:17 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...



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 technical purposes.  Having or starting a SIG is much better right now than a working group:  you get all of the support from the LF that you would for a WG (meeting times, mailing list, etc.), you aren’t mandated to submit time-consuming work products to the TSC (that, let’s be honest, very few people read), and the approval process is far simpler and doesn’t require TSC approval (which could take quite some time and be a huge headache).  If you were looking to start a group—even a very technical one--why on earth would you choose a WG over a SIG?  

 

As an example, I’ve been thinking about putting together a group related to academic involvement in Hyperledger.  The goal would be to help get academics to add their work to Hyperledger (in code) and for maintainers/developers to give research problems to academics.  I’ve written up a (very rough) draft of a SIG proposal for this.  Despite the technicality involved, I chose to write a SIG draft proposal instead of a working group proposal for the very reasons I mentioned above.  While I can’t say for certain, I suspect that some of the SIGs that are popular today made the same calculation.

 

I mostly think this is relevant to the WG reform process (thanks Mic for heading this up), and I’m not a common participant in current SIGs.  But I think it is a little much to say that SIGs aren’t doing any technical work.  I don’t’ know how to quantify “technical contributions” from SIG members, though—could a frequent SIG participant comment more on this?

 

I hope this makes sense.  I guess I’m less trying to make a point about the TSC elections than about working group reform.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From:tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Arnaud Le Hors
Sent:
Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:04 AM
To:
Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

Hi Vipin,

The facts are that while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and report to them, the SIGs don't.
My point is that if the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be handled by the TSC they should then be moved (back) under its structure. It would then be natural to have them be part of the TSC but I don't think we should have something in between.


I hope this clarifies what I mean. This is not about being exclusive as much as being consistent.


Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        
"lehors@..." <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        
"tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 10:50 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion.
Vipin



From:
tsc@...<tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
Vipin Bharathan
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote

  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <
lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.  

  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin













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


Baohua Yang
 

I also want to highlight this link: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/TSC+Election+2019.

And believe most working group/team members are project contributor at the same time.

Thanks!

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:44 AM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
SIGs aren't "represented on the TSC", but nor are Working Groups or any particular projects.  This isn't a House of Representatives nor a Senate.  TSC members are elected by voters based on whatever criteria a voter may choose, but are not there to represent one project or another - they are there as individuals, and to do right by the full Hyperledger community. 

Voter eligibility is based on connection to technical contributions anywhere across Hyperledger, as the charter says, "Anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase".  SIG participants who also contribute code or participate actively on Working Groups are already included.  If you have been technically active on a SIG but not in the above ways, you can petition to be added.

We use the following methods to collect the email addresses for valid voters:

1) those who have contributed in the last year to a github or gerrit repository (including hyperledger-labs), and we have a good email address to correlate to your gerrit or github account.  We don't always get a clean email address from GH so we are manually maintaining that list and doing our best to connect to other addresses we know of for you.

2) those who were named by Working Group chairs (deadline was last week) who have substantially participated in these working groups.

If you fall into these two buckets, then this past TUESDAY you should have received an invitation to join a groups.io (lists.hyperledger.org) mailing list set up for announcements and links related to the Election.  On Tuesday, ~500 emails went out, and right now ~150 people have confirmed the invitation and are on the list.  We received quite a few bounces, which suggests we have bad email addresses - so please search your inboxes, and spam folders, and either

1) Confirm your invitation to that list, OR

2) Ask us to resend the invitation if you know you should have qualified as above, OR

3) You have made other technical contributions elsewhere, such as on the wiki, or jira artifacts, etc.  You can fill out this form to petition to be added to the pool of voters.  Hyperledger staff will determine whether your response to the form points to valid technical contributions and can thus be added to the list.

For future elections we can consider other algorithmic methods for collecting emails and determining eligibility, beyond github/gerrit commits.

See: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/TSC+Election+2019 for more info, including how to nominate yourself for the election.

Members of that contributor-announcements list will see updates about the process soon, so please make sure you confirm membership to that list.

Hope this helps,

Brian


On 8/15/19 8:32 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
Thanks for this interesting info but to be clear, I for one never said that SIGs aren't doing any technical work. My only point is that SIGs don't report to the TSC.
And until this changes, I think it'd be odd to have them on the TSC.

I see this as a simple governance issue. The TSC should be formed of people elected among those that are governed by the TSC.

IMO, the argument that SIGs are doing technical work is an argument to bring up in support of moving SIGs under the governance of the TSC (which would then naturally make them eligible for the TSC), not merely to be part of the TSC election.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "hmontgomery@..." <hmontgomery@...>
To:        Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        08/15/2019 05:17 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        tsc@...



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 technical purposes.  Having or starting a SIG is much better right now than a working group:  you get all of the support from the LF that you would for a WG (meeting times, mailing list, etc.), you aren’t mandated to submit time-consuming work products to the TSC (that, let’s be honest, very few people read), and the approval process is far simpler and doesn’t require TSC approval (which could take quite some time and be a huge headache).  If you were looking to start a group—even a very technical one--why on earth would you choose a WG over a SIG?  

 

As an example, I’ve been thinking about putting together a group related to academic involvement in Hyperledger.  The goal would be to help get academics to add their work to Hyperledger (in code) and for maintainers/developers to give research problems to academics.  I’ve written up a (very rough) draft of a SIG proposal for this.  Despite the technicality involved, I chose to write a SIG draft proposal instead of a working group proposal for the very reasons I mentioned above.  While I can’t say for certain, I suspect that some of the SIGs that are popular today made the same calculation.

 

I mostly think this is relevant to the WG reform process (thanks Mic for heading this up), and I’m not a common participant in current SIGs.  But I think it is a little much to say that SIGs aren’t doing any technical work.  I don’t’ know how to quantify “technical contributions” from SIG members, though—could a frequent SIG participant comment more on this?

 

I hope this makes sense.  I guess I’m less trying to make a point about the TSC elections than about working group reform.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From:tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Arnaud Le Hors
Sent:
Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:04 AM
To:
Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

 

Hi Vipin,

The facts are that while WGs and projects are under the governance of the TSC, and report to them, the SIGs don't.
My point is that if the SIGs are actually doing technical work that should be handled by the TSC they should then be moved (back) under its structure. It would then be natural to have them be part of the TSC but I don't think we should have something in between.


I hope this clarifies what I mean. This is not about being exclusive as much as being consistent.


Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        
"lehors@..." <lehors@...>, Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc:        
"tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 10:50 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
Feelings are not what I am after, but facts. Elsewhere  in my email, it was pointed out that SIGs have large, diverse memberships and are very technical in nature. These folks are not protocol(dlt) engineers but bring a technical user perspective. As we are maturing, we need that insight in our tsc, if we are to spur adoption and address usability and a path to production. For example the healthcare SIG has 1000 members in its mailing list. We should not exclude this contributor constituency from our tsc eligibility pools and our rolls.
This will also enhance our DCI metrics. May I remind you that the last I stands for inclusion.
Vipin



From:
tsc@...<tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
Vipin Bharathan
Cc:
tsc@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.

Vipin,
I'm sorry if my email made you feel I had ignored that part of your email. I hadn't but, I don't share your point of view and my point remains.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/14/2019 06:25 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...





Arnaud,
I had already addressed this question in my proposal: I quote

  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
Thanks,
Vipin


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM Arnaud Le Hors <
lehors@...> wrote:
The problem is that SIGs have been placed outside the governance of the TSC so it seems odd to have them sit on a board they have no direct relationship with.
Am I the only one to feel that way?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM





From:        
"Vipin Bharathan" <vipinsun@...>
To:        
Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        
08/10/2019 08:54 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.
Sent by:        
tsc@...




Hi all,

As a long time observer, contributor and participant in Hyperledger, I make the following comments about the TSC election process.  

  • SIGs are part of the hyperledger community.
  • SIGs did not exist when the HL charter was setup
  • SIGs focus on specific lines of business, they do have strong technical participation
    • For example the paper written for the Telecomm SIG is technical, the supply chain presentation that I attended presented a port of Grid to Fabric based Oracle Blockchain. Healthcare SIG sponsored labs.
  • SIG calls are very well attended. Participants are often more diverse than the project code contributors and the working groups.
  • There has been a case made that SIGs are not under the TSC, and hence are not eligible. WGs and even the projects are only nominally under the control of the TSC, procedures are being worked out to make this involvement even lighter touch as projects, WGs and general technical output proliferates.  
  • Contributors to SIGs are contributing to the community. They should be part of the electorate for voting as well as standing for the TSC
  • We had to make a similar case for Working Groups
Chris Ferris' (as well many others) suggestion to increase the number of TSC members is welcome.

To increase the transparency of the election process, please include the percentage of electors who voted, the votes garnered by each of the candidates as in a general election. There have been suggestions that doing this may compromise the standing of candidates who got in with the least number of votes. Once elected (or nominated) to the TSC, each vote is worth the same.

In light of many of the suggestions already made, it might be wise to delay the election slightly (as Hart and some of the others have already pointed out)

We have the issue of Enterprises of widely different sizes collaborating on Hyperledger. Alternate forms of choice could be considered for the next election including quadratic voting and other methods, otherwise we risk losing diversity and the voice of smaller teams and groups.

Best,
Vipin













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



--
Best wishes!

Baohua Yang