Note: lists.hyperledger.org will be down for maintenance on Monday, September 26th, starting at 9AM Pacific Time (4PM Monday September 26, 2022 UTC), for approximately one hour.
Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!
It is unfortunate that the happy incidence of having gender diversity is tied to the debate about over-representation of a single firm on the TSC. The result is more diversity in one dimension as we lose diversity in another.
A 33% turnout is not good for both. It has been shown that in a low turnout election, committed and well organized groups dominate.
If gender diversity was the result of a 60+% turnout, it would have appeared "more real".
A 60+% turnout would have been better to justify the domination of a single firm on the TSC.
Increasing turnout is also needed for truer democracy in general. Increasing turnout is quite difficult in this age of cynicism and apathy. How do we break through the ice? A question that needs to be answered through concrete steps for stimulating turnout in the next election. I had provided some pointers to the election officer, maybe a little too late. There are well known techniques for this. We need to adopt them.
This is in addition to "who gets to participate in the election" which should be "everyone that contributes technical artifacts to Hyperledger"; including the contributors on the wiki and the SIG participants in my view. The github query does not measure technical artifacts. I could contribute a single spelling correction in github and be included very easily; whereas someone who contributes only an extensive technical blog or article is excluded; if they are not on a Working Group list.
From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Todd Little via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <todd.little=oracle.com@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2019 1:45 PM
To: tsc@... <tsc@...>
Cc: tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!
Thanks for your well reasoned response. I don't want to drag this down into a rat hole or spilt milk debate. I was merely trying to point out the irony of lack of diversity in the TSC vs the other Hyperledger bodies. The governing body by it's membership definition forces diversity and allows anyone with sufficient financial resources to have a seat at the table. For Hyperledger projects to exit incubation they must show sufficient diversity of contributors, although that can be hard to measure as Ry has discovered in this last election process. So it just seems a little odd to me that there aren't any diversity requirements for the TSC. What would your response be if after the TSC elections next year, every member was employed by some organization that wasn't even a member of Hyperledger? It is theoretically possible and given the voting process, i.e., who can vote, completely feasible.
You are correct in that the TSC members are individuals and not companies, but everyone one of them knows who butters their bread. I also sense that there is some dissatisfaction over the common use of Hyperledger as some single thing when the reference is really referring to Fabric. Fabric and Hyperledger when talking about projects are often used interchangeably. For good or bad, this is likely a result of IBM's significant contributions to Fabric, and the ability for Fabric to run without specific hardware (sorry Mic!). Having nearly half the TSC membership made up of individuals (not lost on me) working for one company (hopefully not lost on you), seems specious at best and doesn't help elevate the other Hyperledger projects to be on par with Fabric.
I also wonder at times about the role of the TSC as it seems that much of the TSC time is spent on things that aren't technical, at least not deeply so. Is the whole project lifecycle debate a technical debate? The current discussions about working groups and their roles really a technical issue the TSC should be debating? I also wonder about what control or sway the TSC has on any project or should have on any project. Are the Hyperledger projects just a bunch of technology projects with little intersection and no goal of convergence? I mean every blockchain needs identity, but what is happening in the platforms to consolidate around an identity project such as Indy? Likewise there are lots of issues around privacy and confidentiality, yet the privacy and confidentiality working group has serious concerns about what if any impact their work will have on the platforms. If there is no impact, why should we continue the working group? If there is no impact, what makes something a Hyperledger project other than the blessing of the TSC? And why would a project want to join Hyperledger other than for the marketing value it brings if joining has effectively zero impact on the project direction?