Date   

Re: Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?

Dan Hyperledger
 

I believe a production ready release should imply that the project embodies mature technology and open source practices including community. That is, the project is ready to use in production because the code and the community which maintains it are sound.

Additionally, the assessment of what constitutes mature for a project will continue to evolve with the maturity of this field as a whole.

In the specific case of Iroha and its active status, I recall an optimistic judgement that graduating Iroha would foster more community growth. That has not yet been the case. I'm reluctant to repeat that same calculus hoping for a different result. 

Regards,
Dan Middleton


On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:00 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
Fabric had a set of release criteria for 1.0 documented here: 

These aren't Hyperledger criteria, these were what the maintainers came up with as a measure of 
maturity suitable for what we felt to be a 1.0 GA release.

I agree we are in a difficult position having already allowed Iroha to graduate to Active status.
While the full discussion is omitted, when we reviewed the request to graduate to Active status, we did
have a discussion of the diversity of contributors. If memory serves, there was a desire to continue to drive diversity
of contributor, and that resulted in DaveH visiting with the team to help them become more integrated
with the broader community. At the time, there were a few individual contributors that had fixed bugs etc,
yet if I look at the most recent 6 months, the contributions are almost exclusively from Soramitsu.

Here we are with a request to go to 1.0, and while the code may be robust, the diversity of contributing
organizations is actually much worse than it was reported at the request to graduate.

So, while I am in agreement that 1.0 should be a measure of maturity of the code, I really think that we need to reconsider how we evaluate requests to graduate. I also think that all of our projects need to double down on growing diversity of contributors and maintainers.

Chris


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:58 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
I essentially agree with Dave. I think we found ourselves in an odd situation with Iroha in Active status without a diverse community of contributors but, pending resolution of the CDO issue, apparently ready for a 1.0 release.

I can't say that I know where Dave's criteria for a 1.0 release come from. While we have a fairly precise definition of what it takes for a project to move out of Incubation into Active status [1] I don't think we have anything similar for a 1.0 release, do we?

The key thing here is that the status of a project is meant to be representative of how the project operates, whether it has a good methodology, test suites, etc, independently of the maturity of the software being developed. One key criteria for moving out of incubation is to have a diversity of contributors. In Iroha's request to move out of incubation [2] it was stated that this was the case but that no longer seems to be true.

It's important to remember that we have agreed that in some cases we might allow for a project to have a 1.0 release (aka First Major Release) while still being in Incubation. [3]

On the face of today's situation, it would seem that the right thing to do is indeed to move the project back into Incubation - even though that's not a transition we had anticipated in the Project Lifecycle [4] - and allow for the release of Iroha 1.0.

[1] https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Incubation+Exit+Criteria
[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vi_Ii0omj8lqjt-tdwIiEQPSku8V5DEku2aS5lr1Vo0/edit#
[3] https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Lifecycle#ProjectLifecycle-first_major_release
[4] https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Lifecycle
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Dave Huseby" <dhuseby@...>
To:        "hmontgomery@..." <hmontgomery@...>
Cc:        Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>, Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        03/15/2019 05:18 AM
Subject:        Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?
Sent by:        tsc@...




Here's my 2p on this:

I think the "status" of a project (e.g. "inactive", "incubation", "active", etc) is about the status of the community. A project in the incubation phase is one that has a small core of developers working on a minimum viable product. Typically this is a group of students at the same university or a group of employees at the same company. Moving from incubation to active happens when the project's community outgrows that initial core group and has enough critical mass that the original creators could leave the project and it would keep going.

The authorization to release a 1.0 major release is based on all of the technical aspects of the project. Off the top of my head, that list includes the CII badge, public code repo, public mailing list, some form of CI/CD, public bug tracker, public roadmap, an outside security audit, and some form of change management system (e.g. 2+2 reviews) full DCO compliance, training/educational materials for bootcamps and webinars as well as online documentation.

By applying these standards, I think the appropriate position for the Iroha project is to be in "incubation" but to approve a 1.0. I think Chris demonstrated that the contributions are still 99.9% Soramitsu. I would push back a little and also look for the stats over the last quarter and last two quarters as a more accurate measure of their community diversification. I agree with Chris that a plan is good but actually diversification should be demonstrated.

I also believe that the Iroha team has met all of the technical standards for a 1.0. The code base is solid and real projects are being built.

If we flag Iroha as in "incubation" while releasing a 1.0, not only will it more closely reflect reality, but it also mirrors the status of other Hyperledger projects such as Indy. Indy has been diversifying their contributor and maintainers considerably over the last few quarters and is about to move out of incubation even though Indy node is nearing its 2.0 release.

I disagree that it will harm Iroha diversification efforts to move back to "incubation" status. What is more important is to put out a solid 1.0 release and building relationships with people and organizations that can now take an enterprise-ready Iroha and build things with it. In many ways, I would expect that most projects will reach 1.0 before they have enough critical mass to move out of incubation. In fact, I think that the critical mass actually happens as a result of putting out a solid 1.0.

Cheers!
Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@...


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:41 AM hmontgomery@...<hmontgomery@...> wrote:
Hi Everyone,

 

Thanks for the suggestion Vipin.  Could we define more rigorous metrics for this (or at least suggestions, with perhaps some gray area)?

 

Putting on my Ursa hat, at some point in the hopefully not too distant future we’ll want to push forward with these things.  Having the knowledge of specific requirements (and whether we’ve met them or not, or whether it is borderline) would be immensely useful.  Putting on my TSC hat, I really want to avoid having to repeat this discussion again and again (a la the “improving the hackfests” discussions over the years), so coming up with something solid and writing it down is really appealing.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: tsc@...[mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Vipin Bharathan
Sent:
Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:04 AM
Cc:
Hyperledger List <
tsc@...>
Subject:
[Hyperledger TSC] Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?

 

Hi all,

 

As suggested in today's tsc meeting I am raising the question Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?

Are numbers like the number of lines of code (or equivalent measures) from companies available at time of 1.0 (in active) available for other frameworks that already passed this milestone?

 

Another interesting statistic would be increase in contributor diversity SINCE 1.0.

Just to ensure that criteria are applied fairly for all projects in 1.0. And to see whether adoption is linked to 1.0 announcement.

 

Please put this on next week's agenda.

 

Regards,

Vipin

 

Also added as comment on the Agenda.





Event: Hyperledger Sawtooth Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thursday, 11 April 2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-invite

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Hyperledger Sawtooth Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 11 April 2019

Organizer:
community-architects@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Sawtooth update to the TSC was due April 8, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on April 11, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


Event: Hyperledger Fabric Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thursday, 4 April 2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-invite

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Hyperledger Fabric Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 4 April 2019

Organizer:
community-architects@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Fabric update to the TSC was due April 1, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on April 4, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


Updated Event: Hyperledger Ursa Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thursday, 28 March 2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-invite

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Hyperledger Ursa Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 28 March 2019

Organizer:
community-architects@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Ursa update to the TSC was due March 25, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on March 28, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


Updated Event: Hyperledger Caliper Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thursday, 21 March 2019 #cal-invite #tsc-project-update

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Hyperledger Caliper Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 21 March 2019

Organizer:
community-architects@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Caliper update to the TSC was due March 18, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on March 21, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


Updated Event: Hyperledger Grid Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thursday, 2 May 2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-invite

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Hyperledger Grid Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 2 May 2019

Organizer:
community-architects@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Grid project update to the TSC was due April 29, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on May 2, 2019. Please review prior to the meeting and bring your questions.


Updated Event: Hyperledger Explorer Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thursday, 23 May 2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-invite

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Hyperledger Explorer Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 23 May 2019

Organizer:
community-architects@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Explorer update to the TSC was due May 20, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on May 23, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


Re: Agenda Reminder

Mic Bowman
 

Hi Silona!

Just trying to extract all the material from the mailing lists... Could you add into the agenda page the link to Dave's 1.0 criteria document (this one: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Readiness)? Also, Chris published the Fabric 1.0 criteria... that would be useful background material to capture (https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/fabric/Release+Exit+Criteria). And.. Arnaud, have you had a chance to document your thoughts? 

--mic


On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:18 AM Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...> wrote:

Remember you can suggest items for the TSC Agenda here.

Big item this time is going to be Iroha.

Thank you!
Silona

--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Agenda Reminder

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 


Remember you can suggest items for the TSC Agenda here.

Big item this time is going to be Iroha.

Thank you!
Silona

--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Re: Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?

Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
 

Fabric had a set of release criteria for 1.0 documented here: 

These aren't Hyperledger criteria, these were what the maintainers came up with as a measure of 
maturity suitable for what we felt to be a 1.0 GA release.

I agree we are in a difficult position having already allowed Iroha to graduate to Active status.
While the full discussion is omitted, when we reviewed the request to graduate to Active status, we did
have a discussion of the diversity of contributors. If memory serves, there was a desire to continue to drive diversity
of contributor, and that resulted in DaveH visiting with the team to help them become more integrated
with the broader community. At the time, there were a few individual contributors that had fixed bugs etc,
yet if I look at the most recent 6 months, the contributions are almost exclusively from Soramitsu.

Here we are with a request to go to 1.0, and while the code may be robust, the diversity of contributing
organizations is actually much worse than it was reported at the request to graduate.

So, while I am in agreement that 1.0 should be a measure of maturity of the code, I really think that we need to reconsider how we evaluate requests to graduate. I also think that all of our projects need to double down on growing diversity of contributors and maintainers.

Chris


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:58 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
I essentially agree with Dave. I think we found ourselves in an odd situation with Iroha in Active status without a diverse community of contributors but, pending resolution of the CDO issue, apparently ready for a 1.0 release.

I can't say that I know where Dave's criteria for a 1.0 release come from. While we have a fairly precise definition of what it takes for a project to move out of Incubation into Active status [1] I don't think we have anything similar for a 1.0 release, do we?

The key thing here is that the status of a project is meant to be representative of how the project operates, whether it has a good methodology, test suites, etc, independently of the maturity of the software being developed. One key criteria for moving out of incubation is to have a diversity of contributors. In Iroha's request to move out of incubation [2] it was stated that this was the case but that no longer seems to be true.

It's important to remember that we have agreed that in some cases we might allow for a project to have a 1.0 release (aka First Major Release) while still being in Incubation. [3]

On the face of today's situation, it would seem that the right thing to do is indeed to move the project back into Incubation - even though that's not a transition we had anticipated in the Project Lifecycle [4] - and allow for the release of Iroha 1.0.

[1] https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Incubation+Exit+Criteria
[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vi_Ii0omj8lqjt-tdwIiEQPSku8V5DEku2aS5lr1Vo0/edit#
[3] https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Lifecycle#ProjectLifecycle-first_major_release
[4] https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Lifecycle
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Dave Huseby" <dhuseby@...>
To:        "hmontgomery@..." <hmontgomery@...>
Cc:        Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>, Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Date:        03/15/2019 05:18 AM
Subject:        Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?
Sent by:        tsc@...




Here's my 2p on this:

I think the "status" of a project (e.g. "inactive", "incubation", "active", etc) is about the status of the community. A project in the incubation phase is one that has a small core of developers working on a minimum viable product. Typically this is a group of students at the same university or a group of employees at the same company. Moving from incubation to active happens when the project's community outgrows that initial core group and has enough critical mass that the original creators could leave the project and it would keep going.

The authorization to release a 1.0 major release is based on all of the technical aspects of the project. Off the top of my head, that list includes the CII badge, public code repo, public mailing list, some form of CI/CD, public bug tracker, public roadmap, an outside security audit, and some form of change management system (e.g. 2+2 reviews) full DCO compliance, training/educational materials for bootcamps and webinars as well as online documentation.

By applying these standards, I think the appropriate position for the Iroha project is to be in "incubation" but to approve a 1.0. I think Chris demonstrated that the contributions are still 99.9% Soramitsu. I would push back a little and also look for the stats over the last quarter and last two quarters as a more accurate measure of their community diversification. I agree with Chris that a plan is good but actually diversification should be demonstrated.

I also believe that the Iroha team has met all of the technical standards for a 1.0. The code base is solid and real projects are being built.

If we flag Iroha as in "incubation" while releasing a 1.0, not only will it more closely reflect reality, but it also mirrors the status of other Hyperledger projects such as Indy. Indy has been diversifying their contributor and maintainers considerably over the last few quarters and is about to move out of incubation even though Indy node is nearing its 2.0 release.

I disagree that it will harm Iroha diversification efforts to move back to "incubation" status. What is more important is to put out a solid 1.0 release and building relationships with people and organizations that can now take an enterprise-ready Iroha and build things with it. In many ways, I would expect that most projects will reach 1.0 before they have enough critical mass to move out of incubation. In fact, I think that the critical mass actually happens as a result of putting out a solid 1.0.

Cheers!
Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@...


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:41 AM hmontgomery@...<hmontgomery@...> wrote:
Hi Everyone,

 

Thanks for the suggestion Vipin.  Could we define more rigorous metrics for this (or at least suggestions, with perhaps some gray area)?

 

Putting on my Ursa hat, at some point in the hopefully not too distant future we’ll want to push forward with these things.  Having the knowledge of specific requirements (and whether we’ve met them or not, or whether it is borderline) would be immensely useful.  Putting on my TSC hat, I really want to avoid having to repeat this discussion again and again (a la the “improving the hackfests” discussions over the years), so coming up with something solid and writing it down is really appealing.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: tsc@...[mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Vipin Bharathan
Sent:
Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:04 AM
Cc:
Hyperledger List <
tsc@...>
Subject:
[Hyperledger TSC] Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?

 

Hi all,

 

As suggested in today's tsc meeting I am raising the question Which comes first 1.0 or contributor diversity or does diversity follow from 1.0?

Are numbers like the number of lines of code (or equivalent measures) from companies available at time of 1.0 (in active) available for other frameworks that already passed this milestone?

 

Another interesting statistic would be increase in contributor diversity SINCE 1.0.

Just to ensure that criteria are applied fairly for all projects in 1.0. And to see whether adoption is linked to 1.0 announcement.

 

Please put this on next week's agenda.

 

Regards,

Vipin

 

Also added as comment on the Agenda.





Re: Identity Working Group Calls tomorrow (March 20) at noon and 8 pm EDT

Vipin Bharathan
 

Hi all,

Just to be clear about the times for the Identity WG calls.
The first call today (20th of March) is at 12 noon EDT that is 4 pm UTC
The second call today is at 8 pm EDT that is 12 midnight UTC (since 12 midnight is ambiguous, please look at it as 00:00 UTC for the 21st of March, so it will be the 21st for all UTC and points East)
This was brought to our attention by an alert reader (Russell Standish), thanks for that.
Hoping to see you on one of the calls.
Link to the latest Agenda:

Best,
Vipin


On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:12 PM vipin bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
That would be 4 pm UTC and 12 midnight UTC
Hello all,

Trying an experiment tomorrow by running multiple calls at different times with the same Agenda. This is an attempt to escape the time zone limitations of our calls.

4 pm UTC is good for The whole of North and South America as well as Europe and possibly parts of the near East.

12 midnight UTC the whole of East Asia, Australia etc.

We might fiddle with these dates and times. What is unknown at this point is the level of interest we might get

Two calls tomorrow:
4 pm UTC and 12 midnight UTC

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community

All are welcome.-


Meeting minutes:
We are taking the minutes on the wiki now. Please edit collaboratively or send updates by email. This is the location
You need a LF ID to login to edit.
To read passively you do not need a LFID
 

All are welcome. You do not have to be a member of Hyperledger to be on the call!

zoom details 
iPhone one-tap :

US: +16465588656,,4034983298# or +16699006833,,4034983298#

Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 855 880 1246 (Toll Free) or +1 877 369 0926 (Toll Free)

Meeting ID: 403 498 3298

International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/bAaJoyznpThis is an open call. 


Iroha Release Request: Should Iroha move back to Incubation or remain in Active state

Sara Garifullina
 

Dear TSC members

According to Project Lifecycle page here: "https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Project+Lifecycle", a direct quote:

"Projects are in one of five possible states: Proposal, Incubation, Active, First Major Release, Deprecated, End of Life.Projects may not necessarily move through those states in a linear way and may go through several iterations."

Based on the table on the main page here https://wiki.hyperledger.org Hyperledger still has no DLT framework which is First Major Release state. It seems there could be something wrong with this taxonomy, which brings us to our biggest concern: 

Right now project statuses reflect a technical state of the project and the state of maintainers/contributors communities at the same time. 

This creates an unwanted situation when let's say Iroha went to Incubation — then potential users or customers or maintainers would judge not only the state of community but also the technical state of the project. Implicitly, "Incubation" as a word implies that there's some work to be "hatched" and what exactly is required — is left to a readers' perception.

What we are proposing is to separate lifecycle states reflecting maintainers (vendors?) diversity, and technical maturity of the project, e.g. technical states remain the same as they are right now, but community is assessed against transparent scale (let's call it weather: stormy, calm, sunny, etc.) with defined (TBD) metrics. Since HL has a dedicated community team with Silona in charge — they might run community assessment process with a set of automated tools according to the metrics that are discussed and established by TSC. We may perform such reassessments each quarter.

History (not in HL) knows open-source tools with their community activity and maintainers diversity ranging from little to no activity at all, while still being reliable tools — this is of course not a situation I want to anticipate by any means, but we would like to provide you support for the idea of separation of the states. 

If we flag Iroha as in "incubation" — contributors, existing maintainers, our potential vendors, and users will have a wrong perception of Iroha as a tool that is not yet “production ready.”, based on the statements given above by Hart.

My proposal for the TSC is to:

  • make a decision on Iroha's FMR, considering its state from a technical point of view — things that will matter to people willing to use DLT in their projects the most
  • in parallel launch a discussion related to lifecycle grooming and separation of states for assessment community health and technical state of the project


Iroha Release Request: Discussion related to DCO and sign-off setbacks

Sara Garifullina
 

Dear TSC Members,

Is there any issue with DCO at all right now? We are not yet sure if this is actually an issue in our codebase. We made this assumption based solely on Hyperledger Chapter, section 13: "All contributions shall be accompanied by a Developer Certificate of Origin sign-off (http://developercertificate.org) that is submitted through a Governing Board and LF-approved contribution process". 

Nikolai is going to check with Silona Bonewald if there is a document or reference in LF or Hyperledger that clearly states that git sign-off (-s) option is the only approved option to submit a contribution with DCO. A quick review of this whole story: before 2018 our project used CLA hub tool: https://www.clahub.com, which requested any new member to submit their agreement explicitly for their first pull request. This was a required check, but something suddenly changed in 2018 (if I remember correctly) and Linux Foundation IT team requested us to use -s option instead of introduction of DCO bot in CI pipeline. DCO bot, an example of one of the bot's checks: https://github.com/hyperledger/iroha/pull/2175/checks?check_run_id=78892886; so that each contribution in GitHub is checked by this bot now. 

Nikolai cannot find any discussion related to this decision and would be happy to find out how this happened. As you can see from meeting agenda during the TSC call when Iroha progressed from Incubation to Active state, Makoto told that the project is going to use CLA hub tool, so TSC members should've been informed about that: https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/tsc/message/811

If there is an issue with DCO — should we modify Git commit history? Nikolai's personal opinion is not exactly — we must not modify who did what (commit authors should remain unchanged) and thus squash of all old commits is not an option; but if the correction is required for 1.0 codebase one of our maintainers will go over each of 7k commits and add a sign-off message (which results in change of committer — authors will remain unchanged).


Identity Working Group Calls tomorrow (March 20) at noon and 8 pm EDT

Vipin Bharathan
 

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: vipin bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:12 PM
Subject: Identity Working Group Calls tomorrow (March 20) at noon and 8 pm EDT
To: <Identity-WG@...>


That would be 4 pm UTC and 12 midnight UTC
Hello all,

Trying an experiment tomorrow by running multiple calls at different times with the same Agenda. This is an attempt to escape the time zone limitations of our calls.

4 pm UTC is good for The whole of North and South America as well as Europe and possibly parts of the near East.

12 midnight UTC the whole of East Asia, Australia etc.

We might fiddle with these dates and times. What is unknown at this point is the level of interest we might get

Two calls tomorrow:
4 pm UTC and 12 midnight UTC

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community

All are welcome.-


Meeting minutes:
We are taking the minutes on the wiki now. Please edit collaboratively or send updates by email. This is the location
You need a LF ID to login to edit.
To read passively you do not need a LFID
 

All are welcome. You do not have to be a member of Hyperledger to be on the call!

zoom details 
iPhone one-tap :

US: +16465588656,,4034983298# or +16699006833,,4034983298#

Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 855 880 1246 (Toll Free) or +1 877 369 0926 (Toll Free)

Meeting ID: 403 498 3298

International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/bAaJoyznpThis is an open call. 


Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

Vipin Bharathan
 

Hello Mark and others,

We have been having similar issues with the Architecture and Identity Working Groups.

You do not join a WG to mature into a developer for a particular solution. The work in a WG is complementary to the work in a project. You could do both. The WGs are not just about "documentation".

I have been thinking about the function of Working Groups. In my view it is the following.

The Working Groups were meant to be technical and focused on cross-cutting or primary concerns; like Architecture, Identity, Performance & Scale and now Smart Contracts.

Building stuff does require thinking about what to build. The WGs were meant to be a place where technical concerns from the various projects are aired out and where the collective wisdom of the WG participants could inform us all and prevent the isolation of frameworks from each other. In other words what makes Hyperledger, Hyperledger (beyond a single ledger); to connect projects together. This is evident in the papers published by the Architecture and PSWG groups.  

The Identity WG for example had people from Legal, Technical, Business as well as practitioners from  Identity specific areas all coming together to discuss topics like GDPR, Aadhar etc. and its relevance to the DLTs we are building. We brought Indy into the mix and are now working on L2 protocols in the Identity space. There is no comparable venue in HL for this. Somehow this message has been diluted and projects do not take this seriously enough nor is it effectively communicated.

The WGs were never highlighted in the wiki, and their benefits and contributions were seen as less than "landing patches".  

I see similarities in the way SIGs are forming now. In contrast, to the WGs the SIGs focus on verticals. WGs focus on horizontals. Both are needed. There should be collaboration between the SIGs and the WGs. 

Technical Working Group China and now one for India were formed because of differences in time zones and languages; and they are like all the WGs and SIGs rolled into one for the region. 

So now for some suggestions and ideas to make Working Groups more effective and encourage participation. This is based on conversations I have had with many people:

- It is important to do cross SIG/cross Regional/cross WG presentations
-Promotion in wiki, during bootcamps, messaging and Community Architect Support
-Experimentation with meeting times to encourage worldwide participation
-For PSWG, engagement with TPC, STAC, actual functional use case(Provenance) to look for numbers to measure, Look at ExactPro methodology etc.
-Engagement with Architecture for improvements in Performance like the waterloo project and implications on DLT architecture. What are the implications for other DLTs (other than Fabric)

Hope this long email may be of some use in rebooting the WGs and also rethinking of a more collaborative future. 

Best,
Vipin

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:22 AM Kulkarni, Amol <amol.kulkarni@...> wrote:

One of the issues with the WGs as they’re currently set up is that interested folks from Asia cannot call into them.

 

The PSWG, for example, currently meets from 6:30 – 7:30 pm India time. While I’m working on performance and benchmarking specifically, my colleagues and I cannot call into any of these meetings. Perhaps rescheduling meetings to encourage participants from different geos might be one way to increase participation in WGs.

 

Amol

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Silona Bonewald
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:49 AM
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
Cc: Todd Little <todd.little@...>; Montgomery, Hart <hmontgomery@...>; mark wagner <mwagner@...>; perf-and-scale-wg@...; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

The Technical Working Group China participated in the HKBootcamp and was highly visible.  I think it is a good idea for other working groups to think about how to recruit and engage more with the community thru events like Bootcamps etc. 

 

For example, my team has been discussing with the Learning Materials Working Group about how they will recruit.  First from the projects themselves, and then how do we help them market themselves to get more volunteers?  Of course, having a good landing page on the wiki helps!

 

Also, Hyperledger has been starting up a bunch of SIGs.  I believe some people are moving to those SIGs.  And Ecosystem team is actively recruiting new members to participate there first.  Should we look at how we cross "advertise" internally?  Or look at how we "advertise" to new members and externally.

 

What other paths to recruitment should we explore? 

 

Silona

 

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:15 PM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:

Todd, the Fabric maintainers would welcome additional help in documenting Fabric or providing and curating samples. They don’t write themselves.

 

I tend to agree with Hart’s analysis, and while I have a regular call that conflicts, I join occasionally and am definitely interested in the subject matter.

 

I’d agree with Todd that working with a traditional benchmarking org would be good, as would input into Caliper and other performance testing efforts.

 

We aren’t yet at a point where we can effectively provide guidance on comparative performance characteristics, which is ultimately what people will be seeking.

Chris


On Mar 18, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Todd Little <todd.little@...> wrote:

Hi Hart,

I tend to agree, but I also think another factor is that as we've moved from initial versions of the various platforms to production ready platforms, people are probably getting tied up working on those production deployments.  I know for me it's mostly a matter of I participate when I don't have conflicts or not traveling.

Personally I'd like to see us move in the direction of helping some standards organizations define blockchain benchmarks that can be used to evaluate blockchain platforms, as I'm not sure we're in the business of setting those kinds of standards.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I may have asked this before, but has anyone reached out to TPC to see if they're interested in creating some blockchain benchmarks?

With respect to the documentation, agreed it's fairly weak, and in particular design documentation is sorely lacking, at least for Fabric.  I can't speak to the other platforms.  Samples/examples is another area that is pretty weak.  Our platforms are so feature rich that it's hard to pick them up without a set of rich samples/examples.

-tl

PS FWIW I'll be on the call tomorrow.

On 3/18/2019 5:28 PM, Montgomery, Hart wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

I think this is probably true for most working groups.  At least from what I’ve seen and heard (and to be fair, this is not a huge sample size), fewer people are participating in the working groups, and those who are generally are participating less.

 

I’m not sure this is a bad thing, in many cases.  I think some people have replaced spending time on working groups with time spent on regular projects.  Personally, I’ve spent less time on working group stuff since Ursa has begun (and, obviously, more time on Ursa), which is probably a kind of progression we want to encourage in Hyperledger.  Having people that come into the working groups looking to learn become regular contributors surely is a positive thing. 

 

On the other hand, as the working groups seem to focus more and more on work products—which is typically documentation--fewer people seem to be interested since there is often substantial outside work involved, and not necessarily of the fun kind.  In particular, I think every SWOT analysis we have done on Hyperledger involves documentation being listed as a weakness.   While documentation has gotten better, it’s still something that I think most people would agree needs a lot of work on most aspects of Hyperledger.

 

So, for a TL;DR:  from my viewpoint, people are leaving working groups to contribute (great!)  or avoid documentation work (not so great). 

 

Do these experiences jibe with yours (or others’)?

 

Sorry for another long email.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

 

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of mark wagner
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 12:33 PM
To: perf-and-scale-wg@...
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

Hi

 

I would like to carry this discussion mostly in the mailing lists in order to be as inclusive as possible.

 

Over the last few months attendance and participation on the Performance and Scale WG (PSWG) calls has been declining. I am wondering if we need to shift focus a bit to get more people involved and make progress.

 

There are many possible directions we can head in and I have included some thoughts here, but if others have additional ideas please feel encouraged to add them.

 

First is stay the course. We are currently struggling to get our thoughts on describing metrics for provenance captured to paper.

 

Do we want to focus more on actual performance work vs just defining metrics / use case papers. This does not need to be "just running tests".

 

We can do things like examine trade offs between different design decisions, examine different crypto solutions / technologies from a perf and scale perspective, help understand cost performance tradeoffs.

 

Perhaps we help spin up testnets and drive testing of different DLT frameworks ?

 

Do we provide a performance analysis service to the different projects that is based on architecture decisions. Perhaps something similar to what several research students have done (Harish and his team, FastFabric, etc).

 

I am trying to cut a wide swath here to avoid limiting peoples thoughts, so any and all comments are encouraged. If you have not been involved in the PSWG and would be interested in participating if we did "X" then speak up!

 

thanks

 

-mark

--

Mark Wagner

Chair, Performance and Scale Working Group

 



--

Silona Bonewald

VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger

Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona

The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Re: Some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

Michael Schloh von Bennewitz <hyperledger@...>
 

Hello Silona,

On lun., mars 18, 2019, Silona Bonewald wrote:
The Technical Working Group China participated in the HKBootcamp and was
highly visible. I think it is a good idea for other working groups to
think about how to recruit and engage more with the community thru events
like Bootcamps etc.
This probably deserves an official announcement, but any
Hyperledger activity in or near China should please consider:

Defcon China 1.0
Beijing 31 May - 2 June
Bits and Blocks Village
Blockchain learning and hacking
Partnered with Baidu Security!

We are forming the staff to plan the village right now, and I hope
very much that Hyperledger plays an important role in outreach.

We may have a blockchain challenge or hackathon, or
t may be a bootcamp. It's too early to know for sure.

[...]

What other paths to recruitment should we explore?
The path going through the door of our Bits and Blocks village!

Anyone interested in a management role with benefits or a more
simple one like speaking or workshop instruction should please
contact me at michael@....

https://www.defcon.org/

Cheers,
Michael


Hyperledger Caliper Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thu, 03/21/2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-reminder

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Reminder:
Hyperledger Caliper Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When:
Thursday, 21 March 2019

Organizer:
tkuhrt@...

Description:
The Hyperledger Caliper update to the TSC was due March 18, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on March 21, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.

View Event


Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

Kulkarni, Amol <amol.kulkarni@...>
 

One of the issues with the WGs as they’re currently set up is that interested folks from Asia cannot call into them.

 

The PSWG, for example, currently meets from 6:30 – 7:30 pm India time. While I’m working on performance and benchmarking specifically, my colleagues and I cannot call into any of these meetings. Perhaps rescheduling meetings to encourage participants from different geos might be one way to increase participation in WGs.

 

Amol

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of Silona Bonewald
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:49 AM
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
Cc: Todd Little <todd.little@...>; Montgomery, Hart <hmontgomery@...>; mark wagner <mwagner@...>; perf-and-scale-wg@...; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

The Technical Working Group China participated in the HKBootcamp and was highly visible.  I think it is a good idea for other working groups to think about how to recruit and engage more with the community thru events like Bootcamps etc. 

 

For example, my team has been discussing with the Learning Materials Working Group about how they will recruit.  First from the projects themselves, and then how do we help them market themselves to get more volunteers?  Of course, having a good landing page on the wiki helps!

 

Also, Hyperledger has been starting up a bunch of SIGs.  I believe some people are moving to those SIGs.  And Ecosystem team is actively recruiting new members to participate there first.  Should we look at how we cross "advertise" internally?  Or look at how we "advertise" to new members and externally.

 

What other paths to recruitment should we explore? 

 

Silona

 

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:15 PM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:

Todd, the Fabric maintainers would welcome additional help in documenting Fabric or providing and curating samples. They don’t write themselves.

 

I tend to agree with Hart’s analysis, and while I have a regular call that conflicts, I join occasionally and am definitely interested in the subject matter.

 

I’d agree with Todd that working with a traditional benchmarking org would be good, as would input into Caliper and other performance testing efforts.

 

We aren’t yet at a point where we can effectively provide guidance on comparative performance characteristics, which is ultimately what people will be seeking.

Chris


On Mar 18, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Todd Little <todd.little@...> wrote:

Hi Hart,

I tend to agree, but I also think another factor is that as we've moved from initial versions of the various platforms to production ready platforms, people are probably getting tied up working on those production deployments.  I know for me it's mostly a matter of I participate when I don't have conflicts or not traveling.

Personally I'd like to see us move in the direction of helping some standards organizations define blockchain benchmarks that can be used to evaluate blockchain platforms, as I'm not sure we're in the business of setting those kinds of standards.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I may have asked this before, but has anyone reached out to TPC to see if they're interested in creating some blockchain benchmarks?

With respect to the documentation, agreed it's fairly weak, and in particular design documentation is sorely lacking, at least for Fabric.  I can't speak to the other platforms.  Samples/examples is another area that is pretty weak.  Our platforms are so feature rich that it's hard to pick them up without a set of rich samples/examples.

-tl

PS FWIW I'll be on the call tomorrow.

On 3/18/2019 5:28 PM, Montgomery, Hart wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

I think this is probably true for most working groups.  At least from what I’ve seen and heard (and to be fair, this is not a huge sample size), fewer people are participating in the working groups, and those who are generally are participating less.

 

I’m not sure this is a bad thing, in many cases.  I think some people have replaced spending time on working groups with time spent on regular projects.  Personally, I’ve spent less time on working group stuff since Ursa has begun (and, obviously, more time on Ursa), which is probably a kind of progression we want to encourage in Hyperledger.  Having people that come into the working groups looking to learn become regular contributors surely is a positive thing. 

 

On the other hand, as the working groups seem to focus more and more on work products—which is typically documentation--fewer people seem to be interested since there is often substantial outside work involved, and not necessarily of the fun kind.  In particular, I think every SWOT analysis we have done on Hyperledger involves documentation being listed as a weakness.   While documentation has gotten better, it’s still something that I think most people would agree needs a lot of work on most aspects of Hyperledger.

 

So, for a TL;DR:  from my viewpoint, people are leaving working groups to contribute (great!)  or avoid documentation work (not so great). 

 

Do these experiences jibe with yours (or others’)?

 

Sorry for another long email.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

 

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of mark wagner
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 12:33 PM
To: perf-and-scale-wg@...
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

Hi

 

I would like to carry this discussion mostly in the mailing lists in order to be as inclusive as possible.

 

Over the last few months attendance and participation on the Performance and Scale WG (PSWG) calls has been declining. I am wondering if we need to shift focus a bit to get more people involved and make progress.

 

There are many possible directions we can head in and I have included some thoughts here, but if others have additional ideas please feel encouraged to add them.

 

First is stay the course. We are currently struggling to get our thoughts on describing metrics for provenance captured to paper.

 

Do we want to focus more on actual performance work vs just defining metrics / use case papers. This does not need to be "just running tests".

 

We can do things like examine trade offs between different design decisions, examine different crypto solutions / technologies from a perf and scale perspective, help understand cost performance tradeoffs.

 

Perhaps we help spin up testnets and drive testing of different DLT frameworks ?

 

Do we provide a performance analysis service to the different projects that is based on architecture decisions. Perhaps something similar to what several research students have done (Harish and his team, FastFabric, etc).

 

I am trying to cut a wide swath here to avoid limiting peoples thoughts, so any and all comments are encouraged. If you have not been involved in the PSWG and would be interested in participating if we did "X" then speak up!

 

thanks

 

-mark

--

Mark Wagner

Chair, Performance and Scale Working Group

 



--

Silona Bonewald

VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger

Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona

The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

The Technical Working Group China participated in the HKBootcamp and was highly visible.  I think it is a good idea for other working groups to think about how to recruit and engage more with the community thru events like Bootcamps etc. 

For example, my team has been discussing with the Learning Materials Working Group about how they will recruit.  First from the projects themselves, and then how do we help them market themselves to get more volunteers?  Of course, having a good landing page on the wiki helps!

Also, Hyperledger has been starting up a bunch of SIGs.  I believe some people are moving to those SIGs.  And Ecosystem team is actively recruiting new members to participate there first.  Should we look at how we cross "advertise" internally?  Or look at how we "advertise" to new members and externally.

What other paths to recruitment should we explore? 

Silona

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:15 PM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
Todd, the Fabric maintainers would welcome additional help in documenting Fabric or providing and curating samples. They don’t write themselves.

I tend to agree with Hart’s analysis, and while I have a regular call that conflicts, I join occasionally and am definitely interested in the subject matter.

I’d agree with Todd that working with a traditional benchmarking org would be good, as would input into Caliper and other performance testing efforts.

We aren’t yet at a point where we can effectively provide guidance on comparative performance characteristics, which is ultimately what people will be seeking.

Chris

On Mar 18, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Todd Little <todd.little@...> wrote:

Hi Hart,

I tend to agree, but I also think another factor is that as we've moved from initial versions of the various platforms to production ready platforms, people are probably getting tied up working on those production deployments.  I know for me it's mostly a matter of I participate when I don't have conflicts or not traveling.

Personally I'd like to see us move in the direction of helping some standards organizations define blockchain benchmarks that can be used to evaluate blockchain platforms, as I'm not sure we're in the business of setting those kinds of standards.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I may have asked this before, but has anyone reached out to TPC to see if they're interested in creating some blockchain benchmarks?

With respect to the documentation, agreed it's fairly weak, and in particular design documentation is sorely lacking, at least for Fabric.  I can't speak to the other platforms.  Samples/examples is another area that is pretty weak.  Our platforms are so feature rich that it's hard to pick them up without a set of rich samples/examples.

-tl

PS FWIW I'll be on the call tomorrow.

On 3/18/2019 5:28 PM, Montgomery, Hart wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

I think this is probably true for most working groups.  At least from what I’ve seen and heard (and to be fair, this is not a huge sample size), fewer people are participating in the working groups, and those who are generally are participating less.

 

I’m not sure this is a bad thing, in many cases.  I think some people have replaced spending time on working groups with time spent on regular projects.  Personally, I’ve spent less time on working group stuff since Ursa has begun (and, obviously, more time on Ursa), which is probably a kind of progression we want to encourage in Hyperledger.  Having people that come into the working groups looking to learn become regular contributors surely is a positive thing. 

 

On the other hand, as the working groups seem to focus more and more on work products—which is typically documentation--fewer people seem to be interested since there is often substantial outside work involved, and not necessarily of the fun kind.  In particular, I think every SWOT analysis we have done on Hyperledger involves documentation being listed as a weakness.   While documentation has gotten better, it’s still something that I think most people would agree needs a lot of work on most aspects of Hyperledger.

 

So, for a TL;DR:  from my viewpoint, people are leaving working groups to contribute (great!)  or avoid documentation work (not so great). 

 

Do these experiences jibe with yours (or others’)?

 

Sorry for another long email.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

 

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of mark wagner
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 12:33 PM
To: perf-and-scale-wg@...
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

Hi

 

I would like to carry this discussion mostly in the mailing lists in order to be as inclusive as possible.

 

Over the last few months attendance and participation on the Performance and Scale WG (PSWG) calls has been declining. I am wondering if we need to shift focus a bit to get more people involved and make progress.

 

There are many possible directions we can head in and I have included some thoughts here, but if others have additional ideas please feel encouraged to add them.

 

First is stay the course. We are currently struggling to get our thoughts on describing metrics for provenance captured to paper.

 

Do we want to focus more on actual performance work vs just defining metrics / use case papers. This does not need to be "just running tests".

 

We can do things like examine trade offs between different design decisions, examine different crypto solutions / technologies from a perf and scale perspective, help understand cost performance tradeoffs.

 

Perhaps we help spin up testnets and drive testing of different DLT frameworks ?

 

Do we provide a performance analysis service to the different projects that is based on architecture decisions. Perhaps something similar to what several research students have done (Harish and his team, FastFabric, etc).

 

I am trying to cut a wide swath here to avoid limiting peoples thoughts, so any and all comments are encouraged. If you have not been involved in the PSWG and would be interested in participating if we did "X" then speak up!

 

thanks

 

-mark

--

Mark Wagner

Chair, Performance and Scale Working Group




--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Re: [Hyperledger Performance and Scale WG] [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
 

Todd, the Fabric maintainers would welcome additional help in documenting Fabric or providing and curating samples. They don’t write themselves.

I tend to agree with Hart’s analysis, and while I have a regular call that conflicts, I join occasionally and am definitely interested in the subject matter.

I’d agree with Todd that working with a traditional benchmarking org would be good, as would input into Caliper and other performance testing efforts.

We aren’t yet at a point where we can effectively provide guidance on comparative performance characteristics, which is ultimately what people will be seeking.

Chris

On Mar 18, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Todd Little <todd.little@...> wrote:

Hi Hart,

I tend to agree, but I also think another factor is that as we've moved from initial versions of the various platforms to production ready platforms, people are probably getting tied up working on those production deployments.  I know for me it's mostly a matter of I participate when I don't have conflicts or not traveling.

Personally I'd like to see us move in the direction of helping some standards organizations define blockchain benchmarks that can be used to evaluate blockchain platforms, as I'm not sure we're in the business of setting those kinds of standards.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I may have asked this before, but has anyone reached out to TPC to see if they're interested in creating some blockchain benchmarks?

With respect to the documentation, agreed it's fairly weak, and in particular design documentation is sorely lacking, at least for Fabric.  I can't speak to the other platforms.  Samples/examples is another area that is pretty weak.  Our platforms are so feature rich that it's hard to pick them up without a set of rich samples/examples.

-tl

PS FWIW I'll be on the call tomorrow.

On 3/18/2019 5:28 PM, Montgomery, Hart wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

I think this is probably true for most working groups.  At least from what I’ve seen and heard (and to be fair, this is not a huge sample size), fewer people are participating in the working groups, and those who are generally are participating less.

 

I’m not sure this is a bad thing, in many cases.  I think some people have replaced spending time on working groups with time spent on regular projects.  Personally, I’ve spent less time on working group stuff since Ursa has begun (and, obviously, more time on Ursa), which is probably a kind of progression we want to encourage in Hyperledger.  Having people that come into the working groups looking to learn become regular contributors surely is a positive thing. 

 

On the other hand, as the working groups seem to focus more and more on work products—which is typically documentation--fewer people seem to be interested since there is often substantial outside work involved, and not necessarily of the fun kind.  In particular, I think every SWOT analysis we have done on Hyperledger involves documentation being listed as a weakness.   While documentation has gotten better, it’s still something that I think most people would agree needs a lot of work on most aspects of Hyperledger.

 

So, for a TL;DR:  from my viewpoint, people are leaving working groups to contribute (great!)  or avoid documentation work (not so great). 

 

Do these experiences jibe with yours (or others’)?

 

Sorry for another long email.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

 

 

From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...] On Behalf Of mark wagner
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 12:33 PM
To: perf-and-scale-wg@...
Cc: Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] some thoughts on the future of the PSWG

 

Hi

 

I would like to carry this discussion mostly in the mailing lists in order to be as inclusive as possible.

 

Over the last few months attendance and participation on the Performance and Scale WG (PSWG) calls has been declining. I am wondering if we need to shift focus a bit to get more people involved and make progress.

 

There are many possible directions we can head in and I have included some thoughts here, but if others have additional ideas please feel encouraged to add them.

 

First is stay the course. We are currently struggling to get our thoughts on describing metrics for provenance captured to paper.

 

Do we want to focus more on actual performance work vs just defining metrics / use case papers. This does not need to be "just running tests".

 

We can do things like examine trade offs between different design decisions, examine different crypto solutions / technologies from a perf and scale perspective, help understand cost performance tradeoffs.

 

Perhaps we help spin up testnets and drive testing of different DLT frameworks ?

 

Do we provide a performance analysis service to the different projects that is based on architecture decisions. Perhaps something similar to what several research students have done (Harish and his team, FastFabric, etc).

 

I am trying to cut a wide swath here to avoid limiting peoples thoughts, so any and all comments are encouraged. If you have not been involved in the PSWG and would be interested in participating if we did "X" then speak up!

 

thanks

 

-mark

--

Mark Wagner

Chair, Performance and Scale Working Group


1721 - 1740 of 3844