Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

July 14, 2016 (7:00am - 8:30am PT)

via GoToMeeting

TSC Members

Resources:

• Github:  www.github.com/hyperledger

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

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

• Public lists:  lists.hyperledger.org

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

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

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

Agenda

• Action Item Review

• W3C Workshop update (Arnaud Le Hors, Christopher Allen, and others in attendance)

• Hyperledger Explorer Proposal (Konrad Pabjan)

• WG Updates

Action Item Review

• Hackfest updates and planning (Todd Benzies)

• July 26-27, San Francisco, REGISTER NOW

• 40 registered as of today

• Agenda planning

• [August, Virtual]

• August 24th and 25th

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

• Exit criteria (Arnaud Le Hors)

• Cleaned up document and incorporated in feedback

• Bills email:  http://lists.hyperledger.org/pipermail/hyperledger-tsc/2016-June/000205.html

• CF:  Thinking on deprecation part is that project maintainers would make that recommendation and it would go through period of dormancy while it is still being actively supported (no new feature developments, however).  Do we only address critical vulns or merging of bug fixes too?  After a period of time, 6 months or 1 year, it could be completely archived.  Think TSC should get involved in process just from awareness standpoint.

• Jeremy:  Fear this proposal is a little complex.  Would like to connect with Bill offline to iterate.

• CF:  As a function of software that we release being suitable in a variety of contexts, depending on domain (i.e. healthcare), has the Hyperledger Project done the due diligence to be able to assert that the software is suitable.  Various levels of certification that can be used?  The work done by Bill/Jeremey is great in terms of maturity of software.  Potentially the term “mature” is what people are getting hung up on.  May need another term for a project that is not “incubation” and not “archived.”

• ALH:  ASF uses TLP.  Maybe something more along those lines?

• BrianB:  Top-level, active, or stable may be the best terms.

• RGB:  Stable sounds like “no further development”

• CF:  Write-up is about process of creating the software, not the actual software itself.  When we get to nomenclature of releases, this will be more important.  Thoughts on stable or active for project?

• CONSENSUS:  Active

• ACTION:  Take table and Bill’s proposal and consolidate into doc to talk about maturity of software itself (Arnaud)

• ACTION:  Adjust exit criteria using term “active” and bring forward for approval next week (Arnaud)

• ACTION:  Update Project LIfecycle and other reference documents to use term “Active” (Arnaud)

• Technical Community to review, add comments, and iterate on the Hyperledger Release Taxonomy v0.1.  (Brian Behlendorf)

• Likes semantic versioning specification, let’s take one more week to look at semver.  Look at next week to adopting for Hyperledger.

• Initial draft to establish process, timeline, and criteria for electing the steady state TSC and TSC Chair

• CF:  Propose that for year one, contributors equal code, documentation (some work like requirements wg, whitepaper wg), would also count contributions on exit criteria.  Would like to extend to people contributing to WGs.  Are there any objections to this?

• BB:  very supportive of taking broad view of who is a “contributor” -- anyone who has made a contribution of intellectual value.  Can tighten this up over time.  We are in a community building phase, would like to see big tent.

• VOTE:  Approved.  7 of 8 yes (Stefan did not vote, possibly due to audio line).  For this first election of TSC only, definition of contributor is more broad to also include contributions to the WGs and Exit Criteria.

W3C Workshop update (Arnaud Le Hors)

• Arnaud provided an overview of the W3C workshop, noting that a more formal report is underway and will get shared out once complete.

Hyperledger Explorer Proposal (Konrad Pabjan and Vaniprasad Kommera)

• Present overview and demo of Hyperledger Explorer Proposal

• Discussion

• CF:  This is an awesome start, would like others to collaborate and contribute on this.

• Brian B:   It also sounds like there may be a similar offering from IBM, detaching their Bluemix-based console from Bluemix and making it stand-alone.  Can I suggest that both efforts be combined into a new project, in a repository separate from the main Fabric repository (and thus able to set their own committer base, release schedule, etc) combining the best of both?

• Tamas:  Will you contribute after you push the code?

• Konrad:  At DTCC, there will be full-time individuals to take over this work.

• Brian B:  When we take a new project in, we are partly evaluating what the project does, but also the team.  If IBM may open source and contribute explorer, there is a great opportunity to create a project that sits separate from Fabric and could talk to other projects (i.e. STL).  Important to identify who contributors are, moving forward.  Can we get together DTCC & IBM put heads together to create a joint proposal here?

• Murali:  Committed to this, also taking up Java chaincode.  If everyone is in agreement on Explorer, we can work with IBM.

• CF:  IBM his happy to collaborate around concept of explorer.  Need to do some digging, as this was something developed by the Bluemix team, not the Blockchain team.  Need to connect with that group and see how interested they are with open sourcing it.

• CF:  Start an explorer project and then have first project be Fabric explorer?  And if that can become more generally useful, we can rename.

• Brian B:  How about start as Hyperledger-Explorer with premise that team is free to connect with others (i.e. STL).  Don’t need to be early binding on this, can be late binding.

• Tamas:  If it is using concepts of Fabric, chaincode…. It should be put there.  Either we make it more generic, or we keep it with Fabric.

• CF:  Dan, would Intel be willing to help with this for STL?

• DM:  Yes.  http://intelledger.github.io/sawtooth_developers_guide/web_api/index.html

• CF:  Let’s take a step back, how do we deal with multiples of the same thing.  This is currently in your personal repo?  While we could fork it, since you last day is tomorrow, don’t want to lose.

• Konrad:  Will be pushing code to Satish and then can push to master on HLP.  Satish will have full control.

• Brian B:  Ok, if it is Apache 2.0, we can accept it later.

• Konrad:  when I push code, should I push to fabric or to separate one?

• CF:  We’ll want to work with Satish in terms of getting merged in.  We could merge into Fabric, but that creates a different set of problem.  For now, push it to Satish and make sure licensing is covered appropriately.  And then we can bring it in as a separate repo for this to evolve.  Satish can handle.

• ACTION:  Revise Hyperledger Explorer proposal and bring back to the TSC next week for review/approval.

WG Updates

• Out of time -- please send status to mailing list in response to these minutes.

Actions

• ACTION:  Hackfest preparation and updates (Todd)

• ACTION:  Take table and Bill’s proposal and consolidate into doc to talk about maturity of software itself (Arnaud)

• ACTION:  Adjust exit criteria using term “active” and bring forward for approval next week (Arnaud)

• ACTION:  Update Project LIfecycle and other reference documents to use term “Active” (Arnaud)

• ACTION:  Review Hyperledger Release Taxonomy v0.1 and look at semver (Brian)

• ACTION:  Review “contributor” list in preparation for the TSC election (Todd)

• ACTION:  Revise Hyperledger Explorer proposal and bring back to the TSC next week for review/approval.