Re: Project Taxonomy


Hart Montgomery
 

Hi Brian,

 

I wanted to follow up and say that I think a separate graphic depicting the structure of the community would be a great idea.  If we do this right, it would help new people find who they need to get in touch with to contribute or learn much more quickly, which would seem to be a very valuable thing for the community.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 10:08 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Project Taxonomy

 

Thank you to Vipin, Duncan, Chris and Dan for feedback.  Looks like we have our taxonomy:

 

Distributed Ledgers:  Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Indy, Sawtooth
Libraries: Aries, Quilt, Transact, Ursa
Tools: Caliper, Cello, Composer, Explorer
Domain-Specific: Grid

 

I'll ask Ali to generate a new Greenhouse graphic for us based on her last design but this taxonomy for review.

 

The feedback was decidedly mixed about the other proposed additions.  It seemed neutral on the addition of Labs. I propose that we find a way to incorporate Labs into the graphic, since there is substantial software being built there.

 

Feedback was mostly negative on mentioning WGs, SIGs, events and Meetups here.  That makes sense to me.  It may be worth creating a separate graphic depicting the structure of our community, where we can list those, the TSC, etc., as distinct from this, which is closer to being our product portfolio.

 

Thanks all.

 

Brian

 

On 7/22/19 6:40 AM, Middleton, Dan wrote:

Same as Chris. The graphic designer should keep in mind we will have some projects closing and some opening. I hope that we see the most growth in Libraries.

 

Regards,

 

Dan Middleton

Intel Principal Engineer

 

 

From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Christopher Ferris <chrisfer@...>
Date: Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:03 AM
To: "vip@..." <vip@...>
Cc: "bbehlendorf@..." <bbehlendorf@...>, "hyperledger-tsc@..." <hyperledger-tsc@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Project Taxonomy

 

1. yeah, these are fine I suppose. Caveat that Quilt is not a library. More of a tool I would think unless and until someone effectively created language specific binding.

 

2. DLT seems fine to me

 

3. I think domain-specific is fine

 

4. whatever

 

5. no

 

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: "'hyperledger-tsc@...'" <hyperledger-tsc@...>, "bbehlendorf@..." <bbehlendorf@...>
Cc: "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Project Taxonomy
Date: Sun, Jul 21, 2019 1:45 PM
 


Hello Brian,

Thanks for consolidating and re-animating this discussion.

Comments or opinions in blue

 

Best,

Vipin


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <bbehlendorf=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 9:54 PM
To: 'hyperledger-tsc@...' <hyperledger-tsc@...>
Cc: tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Project Taxonomy

 

Following up from our conversation last month about the taxonomy of projects, so that we can create a useful updated new greenhouse graphic...

I have reviewed the feedback from the last round, and want to suggest the below taxonomy based on those comments.  I also am open to changing the labels of the categories, so I wanted to list a couple of them.  But I want to get a bit more structured in the feedback so we can try to get to closure.

1) using the taxonomy labels in RED as placeholders (sorted out in questions 2 and 3), does the following make sense, yes or no?  Please only vote "no" if you feel that this gets something overwhelmingly wrong for you, for a project you are very close to.  In other words, if you can live with this, please either abstain or vote yes.

Distributed Ledgers:  Burrow, Fabric, Iroha, Indy, Sawtooth

suggestion to use DLTs since it is well understood and can encompass the whole ecosystem, including storage, network protocols and smart contract engine

 

Libraries: Aries, Quilt, Transact, Ursa

 

Except for Ursa, this may include a combination of statically or dynamically linked as well as an entire sub-system with separate processes running on a mixture of edge and towards the center. 

 

Tools: Caliper, Cello, Composer, Explorer

 

Some of these may be considered sub-projects in the future. Depends on outcome of project life-cycle task force.

 

Domain-Specific: Grid

2) For Fabric, Sawtooth, etc: So far we have used "Frameworks", and that's been a challenge conceptually to seeing these as composable (e.g. Fabric+Burrow) or interoperable.  Do we want to use "Blockchains", "Distributed Ledgers", or "Engines", or something else?  [1]

3) For Grid, do we prefer Shawn's original "Specialty", or "Domain-Specific", or something else? [2]

4) In our original proposal, we included a single icon representing Labs.  Should we still include it as a separate box in the greenhouse, at the cost of complexity? Yes or No.

Yes

5) We also include SIGs, WGs, Hl Global Forum, and Meetups as boxes in the greenhouse.  Should we still include these as well, at the cost of complexity? Yes or No.

Yes-differentiation between WG+SIG/And Global Forum-meetups should be made clear.

 

Overall-Suggested a multitier visual structure accessible from the landing page, instead of a flat graphic- may also be necessary to have all in a single (or two)slide(s) for conferences and presentations.

 

Please submit answers to these questions, either direct to me or cc the list, by next week Wednesday July 24th, and I'll collate and report back and submit for TSC approval.  Hopefully we can converge!

 

[1] My sense is that people were most comfortable based on feedback or lack of feedback with "Distributed Ledgers", acknowledging that right now we have a tight binding between the actual ledger and the smart contract system in Fabric, Sawtooth, and Burrow.  Over time we may be able to split these apart to "DL" and "Smart Contract Engine" if Transact is successful, but we don't have separate projects yet for chainode or transaction processors.  So we'd have to accept for now that "DL" means both the ledger & smart contract engine.  Alternately, the word "engine", while a bit generic, might help articulate that its a combo of the two.

[2] While Shawn's original proposal had several other projects here, I feel like many of those are more architectural foci rather than domain- or use-case-related foci, e.g. identity and interop are more foundational or component-y.  Grid really does feel like the first of what could be a series of other projects addressing collections of common use cases or solution patterns; there isn't so much a "supply chain industry" as every industry has a supply chain, but it is a large domain of related use cases, which look surprisingly similar between pharmaceuticals, heads of lettuce, electronics components, or buckets of iron ore.  I'm hoping we see more along other recurring patterns: directory services perhaps, or settlement systems, or marketplaces, or even health records.  I don't expect this to remain a single-item category for long.  So "Domain-Specific" feels better here, but it's not my call.  :)

 

Brian

 

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

 

 

 

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

Join tsc@lists.hyperledger.org to automatically receive all group messages.