SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)


Brian Behlendorf
 

Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:
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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

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


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

Hi Brian,

 

Thanks for the response.  I’m preparing a post on WGs that I’ll make later today on the wiki that should hopefully address the WG concerns here.  I like your description of the differences between SIGs and WGs, and I hope that the WG task force can really pin this down.

 

I have already connected with Marta (and some others) on the academic outreach stuff.  We are working to move this forward, although I have dropped the ball recently due to my schedule.

 

I have a question.  You say, “SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.”  Where is this written?  I couldn’t find this in any of the SIG documentation in the wiki, and I’m worried that I’m missing more information on SIGs.

 

Thanks a lot for your time, and have a great day.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:29 AM
To: tsc@...
Subject: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)

 

Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

 

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:

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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

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


Brian Behlendorf
 

On 8/15/19 11:40 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:

Hi Brian,

 

Thanks for the response.  I’m preparing a post on WGs that I’ll make later today on the wiki that should hopefully address the WG concerns here.  I like your description of the differences between SIGs and WGs, and I hope that the WG task force can really pin this down.

 

I have already connected with Marta (and some others) on the academic outreach stuff.  We are working to move this forward, although I have dropped the ball recently due to my schedule.

 

I have a question.  You say, “SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.”  Where is this written?  I couldn’t find this in any of the SIG documentation in the wiki, and I’m worried that I’m missing more information on SIGs.

It was something we've worked out with SIG chairs when transitioning from TSC oversight to GB/HL staff oversight; and yes, not spelled out.  Heck, I even see we have a "SIG Process" link in the wiki nav bar that leads to a page that hasn't been created yet.  I'll ask folks to work on that.

Brian


 

Thanks a lot for your time, and have a great day.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:29 AM
To: tsc@...
Subject: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)

 

Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

 

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:

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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

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


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


Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

Just to reiterate as SIGs are under the gov board right now, there is an open action within the board to define more prescriptive practices. I hope that the outcome will be that the sigs produce domain guidance to the projects in the form of use cases and requirements.

 

Regards,

Dan

 

From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 1:49 PM
To: "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)

 

On 8/15/19 11:40 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:

Hi Brian,

 

Thanks for the response.  I’m preparing a post on WGs that I’ll make later today on the wiki that should hopefully address the WG concerns here.  I like your description of the differences between SIGs and WGs, and I hope that the WG task force can really pin this down.

 

I have already connected with Marta (and some others) on the academic outreach stuff.  We are working to move this forward, although I have dropped the ball recently due to my schedule.

 

I have a question.  You say, “SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.”  Where is this written?  I couldn’t find this in any of the SIG documentation in the wiki, and I’m worried that I’m missing more information on SIGs.

It was something we've worked out with SIG chairs when transitioning from TSC oversight to GB/HL staff oversight; and yes, not spelled out.  Heck, I even see we have a "SIG Process" link in the wiki nav bar that leads to a page that hasn't been created yet.  I'll ask folks to work on that.

Brian

 

 

Thanks a lot for your time, and have a great day.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:29 AM
To: tsc@...
Subject: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)

 

Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

 

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:

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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

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

 

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


mark wagner <mwagner@...>
 


Brian

Thanks for the clear and concise descriptions. I know that sometimes the lines get blurred a bit, but its good to see things spelled out clearly.

Would it possible to share the SIG Update slide deck that was presented in Tokyo?
I didn't see it online but it shows the work going on and may help those folks on this list that are not involved in SIGS  get a better understanding.


Thanks

-mark


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:
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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

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



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


Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
 

Brian wrote: "Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG."
+100

Chris


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:
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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

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


Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
 

Brian wrote: "SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions."

I see SIG quarterly reports from a handful of the SIGs (only 3 reported in 2Q?) but I don't see monthly reports anywhere. Is there a reason that they are not also posted on the wiki? Or, are these one and the same (eg not monthly but quarterly), and if so, where are the others?

Chris

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:54 AM Christopher Ferris via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <chris.ferris=gmail.com@...> wrote:

Brian wrote: "Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG."
+100

Chris

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:
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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

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


VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Chris,
I think it is quarterly. Some of the SIGs are brand new so they dont have any updates yet like the CMSIG. There should be updates from Telecomm,  Supplychain, Healthcare and Trade Finance.
Best,
Vipin

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Christopher Ferris via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <chris.ferris=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:26 AM
To: Me
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)
 
Brian wrote: "SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions."

I see SIG quarterly reports from a handful of the SIGs (only 3 reported in 2Q?) but I don't see monthly reports anywhere. Is there a reason that they are not also posted on the wiki? Or, are these one and the same (eg not monthly but quarterly), and if so, where are the others?

Chris

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:54 AM Christopher Ferris viaLists.Hyperledger.Org <chris.ferris=gmail.com@...> wrote:

Brian wrote: "Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG."
+100

Chris

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:
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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

-- Brian BehlendorfExecutive Director, Hyperledgerbbehlendorf@...Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


Marta Piekarska <mpiekarska@...>
 

Hi,

The SIG chairs provide a couple of sentences every month which we then convert into slides for the GB. Additionally they do proper reports and updates on quarterly basis. These started when TSC handed off the SIGs to GB and Hyperledger staff – thus there have been only two cycles of it. Indeed two SIGs this quarter did not submit their report. Public Sector Chair is in Rwanda (she’s working with UN and works as a negotiator in conflict zones) and we only got a verbal report from her this time, however the group is in a good shape, they are working on some documents and are having regular presentations which you can find on their wiki.

I am happy to be even more transparent, all the calls are recorded and open so anyone who is interested can listen to them or dial in. It will be amazing if SIGs get more boost to their activities from the TSC, they will definitely appreciate it! And thank you Dan for your participation in the Supply SIG.

 

Have a great day

m

----
Marta Piekarska-Geater
Director of Ecosystem, Hyperledger
 

SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH ME:  calendly.com/mpiekarska


marta@...
+447802336641 (U.K) - Signal and Whatsapp
Wickr: martap

Skype: martapiekarska

 

Based in the U.K.

 

 

From: "tsc@..." <tsc@...> on behalf of VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...>
Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 3:34 PM
To: "chris.ferris@..." <chris.ferris@...>
Cc: "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)

 

Chris,

I think it is quarterly. Some of the SIGs are brand new so they dont have any updates yet like the CMSIG. There should be updates from Telecomm,  Supplychain, Healthcare and Trade Finance.

Best,

Vipin


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Christopher Ferris via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <chris.ferris=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:26 AM
To: Me
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)

 

Brian wrote: "SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions."

 

I see SIG quarterly reports from a handful of the SIGs (only 3 reported in 2Q?) but I don't see monthly reports anywhere. Is there a reason that they are not also posted on the wiki? Or, are these one and the same (eg not monthly but quarterly), and if so, where are the others?

 

Chris

 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:54 AM Christopher Ferris viaLists.Hyperledger.Org <chris.ferris=gmail.com@...> wrote:

Brian wrote: "Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG."

+100

 

Chris

 

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:

Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:

 

On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:

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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

-- Brian BehlendorfExecutive Director, Hyperledgerbbehlendorf@...Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


Christopher Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

Thanks
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Fellow, CTO Open Technology
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
IBM Open Source white paper: https://developer.ibm.com/articles/cl-open-architecture-update/
phone: +1 508 667 0402
 
 

----- Original message -----
From: "VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
Sent by: tsc@...
To: "chris.ferris@..." <chris.ferris@...>
Cc: "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)
Date: Fri, Aug 16, 2019 10:35 AM
 
Chris,
I think it is quarterly. Some of the SIGs are brand new so they dont have any updates yet like the CMSIG. There should be updates from Telecomm,  Supplychain, Healthcare and Trade Finance.
Best,
Vipin

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Christopher Ferris via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <chris.ferris=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:26 AM
To: Me
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: SIGs vs WGs (was Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC elections: electorate should include SIGs and some other suggestions.)
 
Brian wrote: "SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions."
 
I see SIG quarterly reports from a handful of the SIGs (only 3 reported in 2Q?) but I don't see monthly reports anywhere. Is there a reason that they are not also posted on the wiki? Or, are these one and the same (eg not monthly but quarterly), and if so, where are the others?
 
Chris
 
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:54 AM Christopher Ferris viaLists.Hyperledger.Org <chris.ferris=gmail.com@...> wrote:
Brian wrote: "Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG."
+100
 
Chris
 
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
Changing the subject to address a point in Hart's earlier email:
 
On 8/15/19 8:17 AM, hmontgomery@... wrote:
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? 

I sincerely hope this is not the reason why one would choose to start a SIG rather than a WG.

Working Groups should be thought of as our connective tissue between projects - the cross-project place where discussions about identity, performance/scalability, architectural concerns, learning materials, and even diversity & civility issues can be discussed and iterated upon without that discussion being owned by one project or another.  In particular for anyone who holds architectural or product convergence as a priority, certain Working Groups like identity and architecture should be the place to articulate what that means, and then create specific technical plans that projects can follow.  They only can serve that role well to the degree they are primarily driven by active maintainers and contributors on the projects themselves, but given critical mass there can be other participants on those working groups.  Creation of any new working group should partially be gated by whether it's reasonable to expect most of the projects to be able to have people actively following and participating in that new WG.

Special Interest Groups are intended to be more of a bridge to the outside world - to people deploying our technologies for particular categories of use cases.  Those might be grouped by industrial segment, e.g. "trade finance".  Or they may be grouped by a broad set of functionality, e.g. "supply chain", that is more of a recurring theme across all industries than a specific industry.  But the point is that a SIG should be composed of both insiders and outsiders - of both technologists close to what one or more Hyperledger projects are doing, and of those who may simply be "users" of the technology, perhaps even one or two steps downstream, but who is willing to share their domain expertise and involvement in active projects at a business level to drive adoption.

I think based on the above, a SIG for academic involvement makes more sense than a working group, as it's less about cross-project issues and more about being a bridge to the outside world (and yes, helping those outsiders become insiders).  Marta has been managing our academic outreach efforts to date, so I'd encourage you to connect with her on ways we can make a SIG effective.

Let me also burst your bubble a bit - SIGs are expected to provide a one-presentation-deck-page report each month on their activities and accomplishments, which is provided to the Governing Board for their monthly discussions.  Also, we (HL staff) are very deliberate about launching new SIGs - they can often take months to pull together the right stakeholder set, define the charter crisply enough, and make sure they are managed closely enough by us.  So it may only look easier & quicker.  :)  But given all the interest in improving our relationship with academia I think we'd be able to move on this with reasonable expediency. 

Brian

-- Brian BehlendorfExecutive Director, Hyperledgerbbehlendorf@...Twitter: @brianbehlendorf