toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
While I am obviously in support of this proposal, being the first sponsor in the list after Consensys, I have had a LOT of conversations about this "move" and I hope tgat today Goes Well * (defined below).
Personally, I started to help, code and build one of the best Permissioned Blockchain framework (Fabric) AFTER working on Ethereum in 2015 and Bitcoin years before that. At first, I received a lot of criticism from some in the Ethereum community, while I kept on helping Ethereum, with advise, participating (and winning) in some impactful hackathons (Interoperability, Sharing, Confidentiality, Scaling) and help judge in many others. So I am glad that ConsenSys invested in a permissioned version (in addition to the amazing work that the Quorum team is constantly delivering).
Professionally, I would really like the TSC to think about "where do we go from here".
I’m joining the disagreement with Vipin, I didn’t like the tone nor the accusations/blaming that people are not judging this proposal technically, or that people hold Besu to a different standard. I also don't think that this is "diverse" as the project and code is provided by a single vendor (right now). Last, it is not clear at this point that this will get Hyperledger close to the EEA, as the EEA is set on supporting Quorum. With the specification effort (version 4 will be released during Ethereum DevCon 5), and they are welcoming other implementations, but to jump and declare "success" just by having one more project in Hyperledger, does not make us all friends. I am looking for a much more collaboration than competition here.
I raised the question of whether we would like all projects to fit well in Hyperledger and we have a lot of discussions around "who is going to do all this or that". Shawn and Chris addressed it, as indeed "the code won't write itself", and I agree with Arnaud, we are young and have to continue redefine and adapt.
I would like to quicky define what I mean by hoping that the vote today "Goes Well". I think we made a big mistake to not prevent the in-fighting in Hyperledger. Fabric was an investment of many many man years, and without breaching too many NDAs, it was worth many 100s of millions of dollars, especially in 2017.
How did we get there? TOGETHER.
In 2016 we had R3 who worked night and day so close to banking and the financial sector who kept on feeding us with super valuable feedback, Digital Asset - constantly provided us with requirements and I will never forget how much Intel (Mic B and others) set down with the Fabric team and literally worked out with the Fabric leading maintainers some major issues that we missed at the time with the genesis block with channels.
In 2018, we have lost a.lot of market momentum due to all these fights over Grid, over the pluggable consensus (I would have LOVED) to have PoET in Fabric, which I believe would have helped Intel a lot, given the fact that we already have 7 cloud providers who invested so much in having Fabric support. I think the fights and fragmentation is not helpful and a lot of innovation in 2018 is happening elsewhere.
Trying to remedy and bridge, HACERA and IBM have representatives (soon to be maintainers, more likely) of Hyperledger Transact, so that we can bridge the Fabric-Sawtooth gap when it comes to contracts and I would have loved it if Sabres (the WASM work) will be reusable outside Sawtooth, and HACERA can probably help with it this year.
What am I asking? I want people to be very honest with their vote. If we don't want to work with Ethereum, Pantheon or Besu - just say so and let's move on.
But if we do, or are willing to try, then let's welcome their code and their team, and work out what we can do together. Again: TOGETHER ;-)
And Richard G. Brown - of course your participation in any of these discussions is highly welcome. It is a shame that we meet in other events, but please do chime in.
Thanks again everyone.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 10:00 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...
I find myself
largely in agreement with the sentiment expressed by Shawn and Chris. I
find it rather unfortunate that attempts to understand how Besu will fit
in and what its addition means to be interpreted as a vote against it.
I think it is the TSC's job to take a serious look at every proposal and
understand what the implications are. These shouldn't necessarily be seen
as a pushback as much as an interest in looking after the well being of
It has been said
that we are making new rules as we go and I think that's a fair point but
I for one don't think that's really by choice nor a bad thing. Hyperledger
is still a very young organization and it should be expected that it goes
through some transformation as it grows. Our charter states that our missing
is to "create an enterprise grade, open source distributed ledger
framework and code base" . So, as a matter of fact, we've literally
been making new rules all along since we accepted developing in parallel
more than one dlt. Why should anyone be then surprised we keep doing so?
Anyway, I trust
that with time we will get our act together. I understand the board is
looking into updating our charter, which seems to be a good start. What's
important to me, in line with what Chris stated and what I put in my TSC
nomination pitch, is that we do a better job at documenting how the different
projects compare and relate to one another, so that people in the community
out there no longer get utterly confused when they come to our website
in search for where to start they journey.
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain &
Web Open Technologies - IBM
BHARATHAN <vip@...>, "vipinsun@..." <vipinsun@...>,
Silas Davis <silas@...>, "jon.geater@..."
<jon.geater@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
comments in-lined, below.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:11 AM Shawn
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:43 AM VIPIN
Thanks for the thoughtful
already have really good pluggable consensus within Hyperledger that supports
both voting and lottery style consensus that is very close to being suitable
for cross-project use. The next step is packaging that up into a library
that can be reused by the various projects, reconciling the code from the
various projects, and refining the rough edges. I think there is substantial
interest, but it is a lot of work to accomplish. If the Architecture WG
activity in this area is deep consideration of the pluggable consensus
API, with an eye towards documenting potential enhancements, there are
certainly maintainers that would be interested in joining and participating.
- Pluggable consensus
has been in active discussion in the Architecture working group. Unfortunately
participation in such cross dlt architectural conversations has dropped,
at least under the aegis of the AWG. We have had conversations of how to
reboot the WGs and you should join the conversation.
I would agree with Shawn, here. There
could be a bit more alignment, across projects but we do have plug-able
consensus. However, I will remind people that code doesn't write itself,
and no one ever shipped an architecture diagram/paper into production.
Hyperledger is, all being said, an open source community. I would really
love to see people diving in and working out the "how" and then
rolling up sleeves to help drive the implementation of their thinking.
presumption that WGs are where "such work should take place"
could only hold true if the WGs produce artifacts that can be used as input
into project development. I've not seen an active campaign against WGs,
and would love to see useful design documents come out of them.
- There has been no
support to bring "consistent technical principles". Working Groups
and other cross-dlt areas where such work should take place are languishing
and there are many actively campaigning against WGs. However this again
has nothing to do with whether we should approve Besu or not.
Agree, no one is campaigning against
WGs, per se. The discussion of WGs is more about making WGs *more relevant*
to the projects so that the project contributors and maintainers might
pay them more attention and participate, meaningfully to the benefit of
the projects and the broader community.
To some extent,
the question is "What is Hyperledger?" Is Hyperledger an organization
like Apache that has many unrelated projects; or, as we have been discussing
for the last year, is Hyperledger driving toward more unification of its
technology stack (not by having a single DLT, but rather by having the
DLTs have some common code across them). I'm not sure it is mutually exclusive.
However, we have had discussions in which some TSC members and maintainers
have favored an approach of more re-usable projects and less (or no) completely
new top-level frameworks.
- HL is unique in its
sheltering of multiple DLT solutions, there is no comparable
consortium and we are inventing the integrative concepts around such co-opetition.
I am also an advocate of a full offering (integrating documentation, deployment,
operational support, simple and intuitive UIs, adherence to regulation
demonstrable with security audits, monitoring and self-healing),
having had some experience importing dlt solutions into highly regulated
But, should the competition
be within Hyperledger itself? I'm not convinced that the competition within
Hyperledger makes Hyperledger better. Maybe sometimes. I'd definitely like
to see more collaboration across projects than an increase in competition
- The arrival of new
projects into Hyperledger, especially something backed by large networks
who are new to Hyperledger will stimulate work in all areas. When there
is competition, people will be forced to improve their offerings to stay
recent project proposal has had to justify itself in relation to other
Hyperledger projects. :)
- In short, I am against holding
Besu to a different standard than the existing platforms in Hyperledger.
Let us be consistent. Getting new blood and new ideas into HL will make
a difference in existing dlts as well. The new entrants may revive interest
in cross-dlt efforts like the working groups and SIGs.
Agreed. I've been struggling with this.
I think that there's positive benefit to bringing the Hyperledger and Ethereum
communities closer together in the hopes that kumbayah. Though, I don't
necessarily think that there will ever be one DLT to rule them all, and
in the darkness bind them. What I DO think that Hyperledger needs to sort
out is how it positions and promotes its projects. Right now, there is
a considerable amount of overlap/redundancy, and it can be difficult at
best to try to articulate to the general public how the projects are differentiated
from one another. Further, during any project's life-cycle there's a great
deal of effort expended to raise its voice above the din, to get people
to kick the tires and maybe get more interested/invested.
I'm fine if Hyperledger is to become
the Apache-for-Enterprise-Blockchain-and-DLTs, but note that Apache marketing
is about promoting Apache and the Apache Way, not Hadoop, Kafka, Maven,
Tomcat, or OpenWhisk.
Brian and Jessica have a difficult job,
just as any parents with multiple offspring. Each child is special yet
loved and nurtured equally. When someone asks a parent which child they
love more, the correct response is "all of them". So, what should
be the Hyperledger response when asked by press and analysts which of its
projects is better, the correct answer needs to be "judge for yourself,
we support them all equally". Yet, in this ultra-competitive landscape
there is a natural tendency for press and analysts to look for differentiation,
conflict and adoption to inform their audiences (and drive clicks). How
do we enable the projects to make their case if they are promoted as equals?
Where am I going with all of this? I
think we need to collectively (with the Board and Marketing) address the
question that Shawn posed: "What is Hyperledger?". If Hyperledger
is indeed to be a "greenhouse" or "umbrella" organization
where open source blockchain/dlt for enterprise is developed - taking its
cue from Apache. Then, I think we need to come to terms with two things:
1) what we want to be the "Hyperledger
2) how projects are marketed
I think there's much to be learned from
the success of Apache and Eclipse, both of which are home to hundreds of
projects, some overlapping/competing, some collaborative integrate-able
components that fit a given framework. It could be just about creating
a "safe place to innovate", as I like to say. It could be about
encouraging growth of community(s) around projects. It could be about defining
a single compose-able framework for DLTs shepherded by a collection of
WGs that do top-down architecture overseen by the TSC.
However, whatever we choose, we then
need to sort out how (or whether) we market the projects via Hyperledger
or, allow the projects to manage their own messaging.