Date   

Re: security vuln reporting policy in GH

Dave Huseby <dhuseby@...>
 

Here's more detail in my thinking. The informational section of the security policy should really just be a link back to the policy/info published on our wiki. As for the set of releases currently being supported, I'm concerned about the maintenance of that. Do you see the maintainers keeping that list up-to-date? I haven't looked at the GH API to see if there is a way for us to refresh it from the CI pipeline when changes to the supported releases are made. Ideally, we'd use Git tags to enumerate the currently supported releases of a given repo and the CI pipeline would run a task to re-generate this policy dock and update it via the GH API.

As I said before, this is a good idea. It never hurts to shout about our security policies on every platform to encourage interaction and contributions that are security focused.

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


On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 5:48 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
Bumping this topic for discussion. Adding to the wiki as well.

Chris

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:40 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
I know that GH has been reporting vulnerabilities in dependencies for a while now, but I see that they have also added the ability to publish your security vulnerability reporting process via the GH repository.


Seems to me that it would be A Good Thing (tm) to update all the Hyperledger repos with our process, with each project adding in the set of releases covered by the policy.


Thoughts?

Chris


Re: security vuln reporting policy in GH

Dave Huseby <dhuseby@...>
 

Thanks for the bump. I agree with you that it is a good idea. I'm not ignoring this. It's on the todo list.

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


On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 5:48 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
Bumping this topic for discussion. Adding to the wiki as well.

Chris

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:40 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
I know that GH has been reporting vulnerabilities in dependencies for a while now, but I see that they have also added the ability to publish your security vulnerability reporting process via the GH repository.


Seems to me that it would be A Good Thing (tm) to update all the Hyperledger repos with our process, with each project adding in the set of releases covered by the policy.


Thoughts?

Chris


Re: TSC election suggestions

Arnaud Le Hors
 

I agree, this all sounds good to me.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "greg m" <greg_not_so@...>
To:        Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date:        09/25/2019 12:38 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC election suggestions
Sent by:        tsc@...




Brian,

It's hard to argue with such excellent ideas.

Thank you, greg


From: Brian Behlendorf
Sent:
‎9/‎24/‎2019 11:05 PM
To:
tsc@...
Subject:
[Hyperledger TSC] TSC election suggestions


Hi all,
The HL staff involved in administering the recent TSC election recently met to discuss things we might want to do differently next year, as well as some suggestions we'd have for the TSC, to make next year's election even smoother.
1) It's clear there were some members of the community who felt underinformed about the election timeline and process.  The Hyperledger Charter, section 4.II.a, says "The TSC shall approve the process and timing for nominations and elections held on an annual basis."  We had created the 2019 Election wiki page and published a timeline there, and announced it on TSC calls, but could have done a better job in ensuring TSC acceptance and buy-in of the process and communication around it.  Next time, we suggest that the process & timeline be proposed by the HL staff to the TSC and affirmed by a vote, so that the TSC can ensure and represent to the wider community how it's happening and why it's trustworthy.
2) Along with getting TSC formal approval, it would be helpful to have two or three volunteer election observerswho are not running for the TSC, with whom we can CC on every election-related conversation we have or action we take, who can help us with the voter list, and with whom we can share the results from Condorcet.  Apache has election monitors for this purpose.  Those monitors, of course, will not have access to the raw votes, just as HL staff do not.
3) Perhaps the biggest source of public confusion, and the greatest amount of work for HL staff, was in creating the list of eligible voters from the myriad of different systems for collaboration, and then de-duping and correcting for invalid addresses.  The charter describes an eligible voter very loosely: "anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase".  It doesn't tightly define "codebase" nor does it say how much of a contribution is merited, so a one-line edit to the wiki or reporting a bug would qualify.  We are happy to see the TSC looking at redefining who's allowed to vote.  In Apache, only actual members of the ASF can vote on their board, and there is always a known good email address for reaching someone, and that persists even when individuals change jobs/employers.  In addition to other criteria like "easy to describe" and "perceived as fair and hard to game", we would also ask that "easily resolvable to a working email address" be a part of the decision on who's eligible to vote.  Any substantive change to eligibility requirements should also be turned into a proposed amendment to the Charter.
4) Regarding nominations: we recommend moving back to public nominations posted to the TSC list, backed with wiki page from the nominee, rather than collecting by form then posting to the wiki at the start of the election.  We also recommend doing away with formally nominating someone else to vote.  There were three candidates nominated by others who withdrew their candidacy as they weren't aware they were being nominated.  And we provided no window between the time we took nominations and the start of the election to verify.
5) Timing.  There were some aspects of the election with tight turn-around times during a month, August, when many people are on vacations or otherwise distracted.  It may be better to push TSC elections out a month or two; perhaps, use September to do the data collection to determine who's allowed to vote and take nominations, and then October to conduct the vote over a slightly longer period, to maximize potential participation.
Hope this is helpful,
Brian
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf





Re: security vuln reporting policy in GH

Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
 

Bumping this topic for discussion. Adding to the wiki as well.

Chris


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:40 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
I know that GH has been reporting vulnerabilities in dependencies for a while now, but I see that they have also added the ability to publish your security vulnerability reporting process via the GH repository.


Seems to me that it would be A Good Thing (tm) to update all the Hyperledger repos with our process, with each project adding in the set of releases covered by the policy.


Thoughts?

Chris


Hyperledger is part of the GitHub package registry

Ry Jones
 

In the last little while, the Hyperledger GitHub org has had the package beta enabled. This is new ground of all of us, so I've created a distinct org for testing GitHub Actions and GitHub Package Registry.

If you want to test it out, please get in touch with me directly and join us in #cicd so we can all work on this together.
Ry
--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger


Re: TSC election suggestions

greg m
 

Brian,

It's hard to argue with such excellent ideas.

Thank you, greg

From: Brian Behlendorf
Sent: ‎9/‎24/‎2019 11:05 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC election suggestions

Hi all,

The HL staff involved in administering the recent TSC election recently met to discuss things we might want to do differently next year, as well as some suggestions we'd have for the TSC, to make next year's election even smoother.

1) It's clear there were some members of the community who felt underinformed about the election timeline and process.  The Hyperledger Charter, section 4.II.a, says "The TSC shall approve the process and timing for nominations and elections held on an annual basis."  We had created the 2019 Election wiki page and published a timeline there, and announced it on TSC calls, but could have done a better job in ensuring TSC acceptance and buy-in of the process and communication around it.  Next time, we suggest that the process & timeline be proposed by the HL staff to the TSC and affirmed by a vote, so that the TSC can ensure and represent to the wider community how it's happening and why it's trustworthy.

2) Along with getting TSC formal approval, it would be helpful to have two or three volunteer election observers who are not running for the TSC, with whom we can CC on every election-related conversation we have or action we take, who can help us with the voter list, and with whom we can share the results from Condorcet.  Apache has election monitors for this purpose.  Those monitors, of course, will not have access to the raw votes, just as HL staff do not.

3) Perhaps the biggest source of public confusion, and the greatest amount of work for HL staff, was in creating the list of eligible voters from the myriad of different systems for collaboration, and then de-duping and correcting for invalid addresses.  The charter describes an eligible voter very loosely: "anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase".  It doesn't tightly define "codebase" nor does it say how much of a contribution is merited, so a one-line edit to the wiki or reporting a bug would qualify.  We are happy to see the TSC looking at redefining who's allowed to vote.  In Apache, only actual members of the ASF can vote on their board, and there is always a known good email address for reaching someone, and that persists even when individuals change jobs/employers.  In addition to other criteria like "easy to describe" and "perceived as fair and hard to game", we would also ask that "easily resolvable to a working email address" be a part of the decision on who's eligible to vote.  Any substantive change to eligibility requirements should also be turned into a proposed amendment to the Charter.

4) Regarding nominations: we recommend moving back to public nominations posted to the TSC list, backed with wiki page from the nominee, rather than collecting by form then posting to the wiki at the start of the election.  We also recommend doing away with formally nominating someone else to vote.  There were three candidates nominated by others who withdrew their candidacy as they weren't aware they were being nominated.  And we provided no window between the time we took nominations and the start of the election to verify.

5) Timing.  There were some aspects of the election with tight turn-around times during a month, August, when many people are on vacations or otherwise distracted.  It may be better to push TSC elections out a month or two; perhaps, use September to do the data collection to determine who's allowed to vote and take nominations, and then October to conduct the vote over a slightly longer period, to maximize potential participation.

Hope this is helpful,

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


TSC election suggestions

Brian Behlendorf
 

Hi all,

The HL staff involved in administering the recent TSC election recently met to discuss things we might want to do differently next year, as well as some suggestions we'd have for the TSC, to make next year's election even smoother.

1) It's clear there were some members of the community who felt underinformed about the election timeline and process.  The Hyperledger Charter, section 4.II.a, says "The TSC shall approve the process and timing for nominations and elections held on an annual basis."  We had created the 2019 Election wiki page and published a timeline there, and announced it on TSC calls, but could have done a better job in ensuring TSC acceptance and buy-in of the process and communication around it.  Next time, we suggest that the process & timeline be proposed by the HL staff to the TSC and affirmed by a vote, so that the TSC can ensure and represent to the wider community how it's happening and why it's trustworthy.

2) Along with getting TSC formal approval, it would be helpful to have two or three volunteer election observers who are not running for the TSC, with whom we can CC on every election-related conversation we have or action we take, who can help us with the voter list, and with whom we can share the results from Condorcet.  Apache has election monitors for this purpose.  Those monitors, of course, will not have access to the raw votes, just as HL staff do not.

3) Perhaps the biggest source of public confusion, and the greatest amount of work for HL staff, was in creating the list of eligible voters from the myriad of different systems for collaboration, and then de-duping and correcting for invalid addresses.  The charter describes an eligible voter very loosely: "anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the HLP codebase".  It doesn't tightly define "codebase" nor does it say how much of a contribution is merited, so a one-line edit to the wiki or reporting a bug would qualify.  We are happy to see the TSC looking at redefining who's allowed to vote.  In Apache, only actual members of the ASF can vote on their board, and there is always a known good email address for reaching someone, and that persists even when individuals change jobs/employers.  In addition to other criteria like "easy to describe" and "perceived as fair and hard to game", we would also ask that "easily resolvable to a working email address" be a part of the decision on who's eligible to vote.  Any substantive change to eligibility requirements should also be turned into a proposed amendment to the Charter.

4) Regarding nominations: we recommend moving back to public nominations posted to the TSC list, backed with wiki page from the nominee, rather than collecting by form then posting to the wiki at the start of the election.  We also recommend doing away with formally nominating someone else to vote.  There were three candidates nominated by others who withdrew their candidacy as they weren't aware they were being nominated.  And we provided no window between the time we took nominations and the start of the election to verify.

5) Timing.  There were some aspects of the election with tight turn-around times during a month, August, when many people are on vacations or otherwise distracted.  It may be better to push TSC elections out a month or two; perhaps, use September to do the data collection to determine who's allowed to vote and take nominations, and then October to conduct the vote over a slightly longer period, to maximize potential participation.

Hope this is helpful,

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


Upcoming Event: Hyperledger Caliper Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thu, 09/26/2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-reminder

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

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

When: Thursday, 26 September 2019

View Event

Organizer: community-architects@...

Description: The Hyperledger Caliper update to the TSC was due 23 September, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on 26 September, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


DCI WG Survey

Swetha Repakula
 

Hello All,

The DCI WG has been working on creating a survey to collect a base line of the community.
We want to gather feedback from the TSC.

Regards,
Swetha


Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Silas Davis
 

> +1. Didn't Silas get elected as a people's representative or something? Or am I making this up?
> Silas for the people, 2020!

Ha. I'm thinking of taking a run for British PM, populist demagoguery is in right now.

> This goes back to the idea that only code contributions matter

Not the intention of the suggestion, just that the code repos be the canonical source of truth for such things, the credits would just be a log stored there. I agree it could be a burden to maintain but then so are changelogs. For that matter, maybe adding credits with the changelog would be a better place to do it rather than introducing another thing. The point is to provide a canonical location for providing credit to contributions that are not code, have it defined by project maintainers, and keep it easy to harvest when generating the electoral roll. Just an idea I haven't thought through the implications thoroughly.

> No, let's not broaden it. Let's not try and lessen the value of the hard work done by developers. Code contributions are what moves the projects forward.

I think I conditionally agree with this. It's not that I would want to devalue non-code contributions, but if Hyperledger is an organisation for implementations _not_ a standards or research organisation then I think it is a reasonable (if imperfect) indicator of the practical value of non-code contributions if there is evidence for them in the form of some checked-in artefact. If there is some serious cross-project technical work embedded on the wiki then I can see the unfairness of it not being considered a contribution, but on the other hand I think a wiki 'touch' is too low a bar. At least with a PR it has been accepted by a maintainer. That said I have received a number of really trivial text corrections of very low value which I suspect may have been to gain classification as a contributor or possibly just contribution farming for CV purposes... Not sure what the right answer is here.

> Should all paying members also have some small voting opportunity in addition to code contributors.

Not at all keen on deliberately building a plutocracy. People are willing to make out-sized contributions because Hyperledger just about manages to be a grass-roots open source engineering organisation. If it was so explicitly 'run by the money' this would put me and many contributors I know off Hyperledger.

> Its their money that fuels some of the work.

Not really. Hyperledger tries to act as catalyst but they don't buy my dinner, that would be my employer. Members already get benefit from the access to events, developers, information, the free software itself.

Silas


On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Mohan Venkataraman <mohan.venkataraman@...> wrote:
Glad to welcome the new TSC. 

Just my two cents in this ongoing email.
Should all paying members also have some small voting opportunity in addition to code contributors. Its their money that fuels some of the work. While its technical, there is plrnty of commercial interest in this noble work.

Mohan



On Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 12:37 AM Shawn Amundson <amundson@...> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:32 PM Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
...

This goes back to the idea that only code contributions matter- please broaden your outlook on what "technical contributions" are. Also this signed list will be extremely difficult to maintain. Right now, even the equivalent of a "touch" (I am exaggerating here) can get you into the rolls. Which is OK.
 
...

No, let's not broaden it. Let's not try and lessen the value of the hard work done by developers. Code contributions are what moves the projects forward. If you are doing architecture or design work that makes it into the code, but someone else did the coding and commits, yes, you contributed. Probably your designs should have been committed to git as RFCs or similar. If you can't make that connection, it should not be considered the same thing. Meeting attendance, for example, is irrelevant.

-Shawn


Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Mohan Venkataraman
 

Glad to welcome the new TSC. 

Just my two cents in this ongoing email.
Should all paying members also have some small voting opportunity in addition to code contributors. Its their money that fuels some of the work. While its technical, there is plrnty of commercial interest in this noble work.

Mohan



On Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 12:37 AM Shawn Amundson <amundson@...> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:32 PM Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
...

This goes back to the idea that only code contributions matter- please broaden your outlook on what "technical contributions" are. Also this signed list will be extremely difficult to maintain. Right now, even the equivalent of a "touch" (I am exaggerating here) can get you into the rolls. Which is OK.
 
...

No, let's not broaden it. Let's not try and lessen the value of the hard work done by developers. Code contributions are what moves the projects forward. If you are doing architecture or design work that makes it into the code, but someone else did the coding and commits, yes, you contributed. Probably your designs should have been committed to git as RFCs or similar. If you can't make that connection, it should not be considered the same thing. Meeting attendance, for example, is irrelevant.

-Shawn


Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Shawn Amundson
 

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:32 PM Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote:
...

This goes back to the idea that only code contributions matter- please broaden your outlook on what "technical contributions" are. Also this signed list will be extremely difficult to maintain. Right now, even the equivalent of a "touch" (I am exaggerating here) can get you into the rolls. Which is OK.
 
...

No, let's not broaden it. Let's not try and lessen the value of the hard work done by developers. Code contributions are what moves the projects forward. If you are doing architecture or design work that makes it into the code, but someone else did the coding and commits, yes, you contributed. Probably your designs should have been committed to git as RFCs or similar. If you can't make that connection, it should not be considered the same thing. Meeting attendance, for example, is irrelevant.

-Shawn


Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Vipin Bharathan
 

Silas,

Thanks for a detailed response
> There are well known techniques for this. We need to adopt them.
>What are they?

For example, (from "Nudge") - it is shown that reminders during the election unfavorably comparing the current turnout to global averages raises the turnout. Reachability is very important as well. The eligibility lists should be probed for reachability at well publicized intervals. Let us come up with some methods that may apply in our case.

>How about a roll of credits stored as lines in a plain text file of the form `Date of contribution - nature of contribution` which could be stored in the repo and for which each commit adding a credit would need to be signed by a project maintainer or possibly existing contributor? This would put the definition of a contribution under the control of projects themselves.  

This goes back to the idea that only code contributions matter- please broaden your outlook on what "technical contributions" are. Also this signed list will be extremely difficult to maintain. Right now, even the equivalent of a "touch" (I am exaggerating here) can get you into the rolls. Which is OK.

Vipin


On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 7:40 AM Silas Davis <silas@...> wrote:
From my experience of the people elected, the TSC looks like a good TSC.

I think we should enlarge the TSC as a tactical manoeuvre (which may not work) to nudge Hyperledger towards a more project-diverse TSC.

The preponderance of IBM employees is a symptom of the dominance of Fabric in Hyperledger and the relative dominance of IBM in the Fabric project as other's have pointed out. One can only vote for those one knows and Fabric contributors are a highly connected subset of Hyperledger. The solution (he says blithely) is for other projects to become more relevant (to those inside and outside Hyperledger), attract more contributors, and then to apply more democracy. Which is to say I don't think medicating the imbalance of the TSC directly is probably the right way to go.

However it is not a given that the positive feedback above will happen on its own given the inertia associated with project adoption, public mindshare, etc. It is hard to know where the momentum is with Hyperledger in this respect but some small interventions now might pay dividends later.

It's worth questioning whether having greater project/company diversity on the TSC is even a Good Thing. It's not like IBM or Fabric people are a homogeneous block. However I would suggest:

- Diversity of ideas - I think the well rehearsed ideas about avoiding groupthink etc apply here. Different projects are exploring different parts of the space of distributed ledgers useful to have these ideas injected.
- Representation of projects - so long as Hyperledger is a multiple project umbrella it is useful to have representation on decision-making boards that affect projects. The TSC may not be a house of representatives but seems that function is there
- Politics - occasionally decisions come up that have more commercial/ideological significance (i.e. whether to accept a new project), this is where a balance of forces are important particularly amongst cooperating competitors
- Competence - it is difficult for people with no exposure to a project's code or design outside of surveying it in order to answer a question coming to the TSC to decide on finely balanced technical matters. Usually the right thing to do is for the TSC to defer to those with more context. But having people experienced with a greater range of projects means those people can help spread that context to other TSC members aided by an existing relationship with those other TSC members.

For my part I was planning to stick around the TSC meetings and list despite no longer being a  member, the general prospect of which was noted by Mark and Arnaud on a previous call. However I would note that in the same way that getting elected to the TSC was a spur to apportion more of my time and effort to Hyperledger, losing the franchise does remove some of that impetus (although rather less since now I feel more involved) so even if TSC votes are rather consensual after discussions (as Arnaud noted) I would not discount the effect of the responsibility of being a bona fide TSC member as a human motivator to do more work.

Thinking about some of Todd's criticisms of the technical import of things discussed at the TSC. I would argue that things such as project lifecycle are relevant to the technical output of Hyperledger given software engineering is a team sport. I'd agree they are not deeply technical as defining a consensus interface or standardising on a choice of stream cipher might be. I too would like to see more deeply technical matters considered at the TSC, however I think the reason this is hard is the same as mentioned in the 'competence' bullet-point above. We generally need to be way more up inside each other's projects.

> There are well known techniques for this. We need to adopt them.

What are they?

> This is in addition to "who gets to participate in the election" which should be "everyone that contributes technical artifacts to Hyperledger"

How about a roll of credits stored as lines in a plain text file of the form `Date of contribution - nature of contribution` which could be stored in the repo and for which each commit adding a credit would need to be signed by a project maintainer or possibly existing contributor? This would put the definition of a contribution under the control of projects themselves.

Silas

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 02:38, VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:

Hi Brian/Todd/Bob/all,

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.

Best,
Vipin
 

dlt.nyc
Vipin Bharathan
Enterprise Blockchain Consultant


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!
 
Hi Brian,

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?

Respectfully,
Todd


Proposal: remove pinned repo list on GitHub

Ry Jones
 

GitHub has a limit of six pinned repos. When we added these pins, we didn't have six top level projects. Now we have over six.

I propose to either pin one repo - this one - or none at all.

CNCF has three repos, for instance.

I would prefer to unpin all repos, and later decide if we would like to pin one or two more general repos.
Ry

--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger


Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Christopher Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

Silas for the people, 2020!

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Fellow, CTO Open Technology
IBM Digital Business Group, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris

On Sep 20, 2019, at 9:46 AM, Duncan Johnston-Watt <duncan@...> wrote:

+1. Didn't Silas get elected as a people's representative or something? Or am I making this up?

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:26 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
Silas,

Thanks for your thoughtful note. I agree pretty much completely with all that you wrote.

I was also very pleased to read that you intend to stay engaged. You always bring a great perspective.

Cheers,

Chris

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 7:40 AM Silas Davis via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <silas=monax.io@...> wrote:
From my experience of the people elected, the TSC looks like a good TSC.

I think we should enlarge the TSC as a tactical manoeuvre (which may not work) to nudge Hyperledger towards a more project-diverse TSC.

The preponderance of IBM employees is a symptom of the dominance of Fabric in Hyperledger and the relative dominance of IBM in the Fabric project as other's have pointed out. One can only vote for those one knows and Fabric contributors are a highly connected subset of Hyperledger. The solution (he says blithely) is for other projects to become more relevant (to those inside and outside Hyperledger), attract more contributors, and then to apply more democracy. Which is to say I don't think medicating the imbalance of the TSC directly is probably the right way to go.

However it is not a given that the positive feedback above will happen on its own given the inertia associated with project adoption, public mindshare, etc. It is hard to know where the momentum is with Hyperledger in this respect but some small interventions now might pay dividends later.

It's worth questioning whether having greater project/company diversity on the TSC is even a Good Thing. It's not like IBM or Fabric people are a homogeneous block. However I would suggest:

- Diversity of ideas - I think the well rehearsed ideas about avoiding groupthink etc apply here. Different projects are exploring different parts of the space of distributed ledgers useful to have these ideas injected.
- Representation of projects - so long as Hyperledger is a multiple project umbrella it is useful to have representation on decision-making boards that affect projects. The TSC may not be a house of representatives but seems that function is there
- Politics - occasionally decisions come up that have more commercial/ideological significance (i.e. whether to accept a new project), this is where a balance of forces are important particularly amongst cooperating competitors
- Competence - it is difficult for people with no exposure to a project's code or design outside of surveying it in order to answer a question coming to the TSC to decide on finely balanced technical matters. Usually the right thing to do is for the TSC to defer to those with more context. But having people experienced with a greater range of projects means those people can help spread that context to other TSC members aided by an existing relationship with those other TSC members.

For my part I was planning to stick around the TSC meetings and list despite no longer being a  member, the general prospect of which was noted by Mark and Arnaud on a previous call. However I would note that in the same way that getting elected to the TSC was a spur to apportion more of my time and effort to Hyperledger, losing the franchise does remove some of that impetus (although rather less since now I feel more involved) so even if TSC votes are rather consensual after discussions (as Arnaud noted) I would not discount the effect of the responsibility of being a bona fide TSC member as a human motivator to do more work.

Thinking about some of Todd's criticisms of the technical import of things discussed at the TSC. I would argue that things such as project lifecycle are relevant to the technical output of Hyperledger given software engineering is a team sport. I'd agree they are not deeply technical as defining a consensus interface or standardising on a choice of stream cipher might be. I too would like to see more deeply technical matters considered at the TSC, however I think the reason this is hard is the same as mentioned in the 'competence' bullet-point above. We generally need to be way more up inside each other's projects.

> There are well known techniques for this. We need to adopt them.

What are they?

> This is in addition to "who gets to participate in the election" which should be "everyone that contributes technical artifacts to Hyperledger"

How about a roll of credits stored as lines in a plain text file of the form `Date of contribution - nature of contribution` which could be stored in the repo and for which each commit adding a credit would need to be signed by a project maintainer or possibly existing contributor? This would put the definition of a contribution under the control of projects themselves.

Silas

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 02:38, VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:

Hi Brian/Todd/Bob/all,

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.

Best,
Vipin
 

Vipin Bharathan
Enterprise Blockchain Consultant


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!
 
Hi Brian,

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?

Respectfully,
Todd



--


Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Duncan Johnston-Watt
 

+1. Didn't Silas get elected as a people's representative or something? Or am I making this up?

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:26 AM Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:
Silas,

Thanks for your thoughtful note. I agree pretty much completely with all that you wrote.

I was also very pleased to read that you intend to stay engaged. You always bring a great perspective.

Cheers,

Chris

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 7:40 AM Silas Davis via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <silas=monax.io@...> wrote:
From my experience of the people elected, the TSC looks like a good TSC.

I think we should enlarge the TSC as a tactical manoeuvre (which may not work) to nudge Hyperledger towards a more project-diverse TSC.

The preponderance of IBM employees is a symptom of the dominance of Fabric in Hyperledger and the relative dominance of IBM in the Fabric project as other's have pointed out. One can only vote for those one knows and Fabric contributors are a highly connected subset of Hyperledger. The solution (he says blithely) is for other projects to become more relevant (to those inside and outside Hyperledger), attract more contributors, and then to apply more democracy. Which is to say I don't think medicating the imbalance of the TSC directly is probably the right way to go.

However it is not a given that the positive feedback above will happen on its own given the inertia associated with project adoption, public mindshare, etc. It is hard to know where the momentum is with Hyperledger in this respect but some small interventions now might pay dividends later.

It's worth questioning whether having greater project/company diversity on the TSC is even a Good Thing. It's not like IBM or Fabric people are a homogeneous block. However I would suggest:

- Diversity of ideas - I think the well rehearsed ideas about avoiding groupthink etc apply here. Different projects are exploring different parts of the space of distributed ledgers useful to have these ideas injected.
- Representation of projects - so long as Hyperledger is a multiple project umbrella it is useful to have representation on decision-making boards that affect projects. The TSC may not be a house of representatives but seems that function is there
- Politics - occasionally decisions come up that have more commercial/ideological significance (i.e. whether to accept a new project), this is where a balance of forces are important particularly amongst cooperating competitors
- Competence - it is difficult for people with no exposure to a project's code or design outside of surveying it in order to answer a question coming to the TSC to decide on finely balanced technical matters. Usually the right thing to do is for the TSC to defer to those with more context. But having people experienced with a greater range of projects means those people can help spread that context to other TSC members aided by an existing relationship with those other TSC members.

For my part I was planning to stick around the TSC meetings and list despite no longer being a  member, the general prospect of which was noted by Mark and Arnaud on a previous call. However I would note that in the same way that getting elected to the TSC was a spur to apportion more of my time and effort to Hyperledger, losing the franchise does remove some of that impetus (although rather less since now I feel more involved) so even if TSC votes are rather consensual after discussions (as Arnaud noted) I would not discount the effect of the responsibility of being a bona fide TSC member as a human motivator to do more work.

Thinking about some of Todd's criticisms of the technical import of things discussed at the TSC. I would argue that things such as project lifecycle are relevant to the technical output of Hyperledger given software engineering is a team sport. I'd agree they are not deeply technical as defining a consensus interface or standardising on a choice of stream cipher might be. I too would like to see more deeply technical matters considered at the TSC, however I think the reason this is hard is the same as mentioned in the 'competence' bullet-point above. We generally need to be way more up inside each other's projects.

> There are well known techniques for this. We need to adopt them.

What are they?

> This is in addition to "who gets to participate in the election" which should be "everyone that contributes technical artifacts to Hyperledger"

How about a roll of credits stored as lines in a plain text file of the form `Date of contribution - nature of contribution` which could be stored in the repo and for which each commit adding a credit would need to be signed by a project maintainer or possibly existing contributor? This would put the definition of a contribution under the control of projects themselves.

Silas

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 02:38, VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:

Hi Brian/Todd/Bob/all,

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.

Best,
Vipin
 

dlt.nyc
Vipin Bharathan
Enterprise Blockchain Consultant


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!
 
Hi Brian,

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?

Respectfully,
Todd




Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...>
 

Silas,

Thanks for your thoughtful note. I agree pretty much completely with all that you wrote.

I was also very pleased to read that you intend to stay engaged. You always bring a great perspective.

Cheers,

Chris


On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 7:40 AM Silas Davis via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <silas=monax.io@...> wrote:
From my experience of the people elected, the TSC looks like a good TSC.

I think we should enlarge the TSC as a tactical manoeuvre (which may not work) to nudge Hyperledger towards a more project-diverse TSC.

The preponderance of IBM employees is a symptom of the dominance of Fabric in Hyperledger and the relative dominance of IBM in the Fabric project as other's have pointed out. One can only vote for those one knows and Fabric contributors are a highly connected subset of Hyperledger. The solution (he says blithely) is for other projects to become more relevant (to those inside and outside Hyperledger), attract more contributors, and then to apply more democracy. Which is to say I don't think medicating the imbalance of the TSC directly is probably the right way to go.

However it is not a given that the positive feedback above will happen on its own given the inertia associated with project adoption, public mindshare, etc. It is hard to know where the momentum is with Hyperledger in this respect but some small interventions now might pay dividends later.

It's worth questioning whether having greater project/company diversity on the TSC is even a Good Thing. It's not like IBM or Fabric people are a homogeneous block. However I would suggest:

- Diversity of ideas - I think the well rehearsed ideas about avoiding groupthink etc apply here. Different projects are exploring different parts of the space of distributed ledgers useful to have these ideas injected.
- Representation of projects - so long as Hyperledger is a multiple project umbrella it is useful to have representation on decision-making boards that affect projects. The TSC may not be a house of representatives but seems that function is there
- Politics - occasionally decisions come up that have more commercial/ideological significance (i.e. whether to accept a new project), this is where a balance of forces are important particularly amongst cooperating competitors
- Competence - it is difficult for people with no exposure to a project's code or design outside of surveying it in order to answer a question coming to the TSC to decide on finely balanced technical matters. Usually the right thing to do is for the TSC to defer to those with more context. But having people experienced with a greater range of projects means those people can help spread that context to other TSC members aided by an existing relationship with those other TSC members.

For my part I was planning to stick around the TSC meetings and list despite no longer being a  member, the general prospect of which was noted by Mark and Arnaud on a previous call. However I would note that in the same way that getting elected to the TSC was a spur to apportion more of my time and effort to Hyperledger, losing the franchise does remove some of that impetus (although rather less since now I feel more involved) so even if TSC votes are rather consensual after discussions (as Arnaud noted) I would not discount the effect of the responsibility of being a bona fide TSC member as a human motivator to do more work.

Thinking about some of Todd's criticisms of the technical import of things discussed at the TSC. I would argue that things such as project lifecycle are relevant to the technical output of Hyperledger given software engineering is a team sport. I'd agree they are not deeply technical as defining a consensus interface or standardising on a choice of stream cipher might be. I too would like to see more deeply technical matters considered at the TSC, however I think the reason this is hard is the same as mentioned in the 'competence' bullet-point above. We generally need to be way more up inside each other's projects.

> There are well known techniques for this. We need to adopt them.

What are they?

> This is in addition to "who gets to participate in the election" which should be "everyone that contributes technical artifacts to Hyperledger"

How about a roll of credits stored as lines in a plain text file of the form `Date of contribution - nature of contribution` which could be stored in the repo and for which each commit adding a credit would need to be signed by a project maintainer or possibly existing contributor? This would put the definition of a contribution under the control of projects themselves.

Silas

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 02:38, VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:

Hi Brian/Todd/Bob/all,

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.

Best,
Vipin
 

dlt.nyc
Vipin Bharathan
Enterprise Blockchain Consultant


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!
 
Hi Brian,

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?

Respectfully,
Todd


Re: Congratulations to the members of the 2019-2020 TSC!

Silas Davis
 

From my experience of the people elected, the TSC looks like a good TSC.

I think we should enlarge the TSC as a tactical manoeuvre (which may not work) to nudge Hyperledger towards a more project-diverse TSC.

The preponderance of IBM employees is a symptom of the dominance of Fabric in Hyperledger and the relative dominance of IBM in the Fabric project as other's have pointed out. One can only vote for those one knows and Fabric contributors are a highly connected subset of Hyperledger. The solution (he says blithely) is for other projects to become more relevant (to those inside and outside Hyperledger), attract more contributors, and then to apply more democracy. Which is to say I don't think medicating the imbalance of the TSC directly is probably the right way to go.

However it is not a given that the positive feedback above will happen on its own given the inertia associated with project adoption, public mindshare, etc. It is hard to know where the momentum is with Hyperledger in this respect but some small interventions now might pay dividends later.

It's worth questioning whether having greater project/company diversity on the TSC is even a Good Thing. It's not like IBM or Fabric people are a homogeneous block. However I would suggest:

- Diversity of ideas - I think the well rehearsed ideas about avoiding groupthink etc apply here. Different projects are exploring different parts of the space of distributed ledgers useful to have these ideas injected.
- Representation of projects - so long as Hyperledger is a multiple project umbrella it is useful to have representation on decision-making boards that affect projects. The TSC may not be a house of representatives but seems that function is there
- Politics - occasionally decisions come up that have more commercial/ideological significance (i.e. whether to accept a new project), this is where a balance of forces are important particularly amongst cooperating competitors
- Competence - it is difficult for people with no exposure to a project's code or design outside of surveying it in order to answer a question coming to the TSC to decide on finely balanced technical matters. Usually the right thing to do is for the TSC to defer to those with more context. But having people experienced with a greater range of projects means those people can help spread that context to other TSC members aided by an existing relationship with those other TSC members.

For my part I was planning to stick around the TSC meetings and list despite no longer being a  member, the general prospect of which was noted by Mark and Arnaud on a previous call. However I would note that in the same way that getting elected to the TSC was a spur to apportion more of my time and effort to Hyperledger, losing the franchise does remove some of that impetus (although rather less since now I feel more involved) so even if TSC votes are rather consensual after discussions (as Arnaud noted) I would not discount the effect of the responsibility of being a bona fide TSC member as a human motivator to do more work.

Thinking about some of Todd's criticisms of the technical import of things discussed at the TSC. I would argue that things such as project lifecycle are relevant to the technical output of Hyperledger given software engineering is a team sport. I'd agree they are not deeply technical as defining a consensus interface or standardising on a choice of stream cipher might be. I too would like to see more deeply technical matters considered at the TSC, however I think the reason this is hard is the same as mentioned in the 'competence' bullet-point above. We generally need to be way more up inside each other's projects.

> There are well known techniques for this. We need to adopt them.

What are they?

> This is in addition to "who gets to participate in the election" which should be "everyone that contributes technical artifacts to Hyperledger"

How about a roll of credits stored as lines in a plain text file of the form `Date of contribution - nature of contribution` which could be stored in the repo and for which each commit adding a credit would need to be signed by a project maintainer or possibly existing contributor? This would put the definition of a contribution under the control of projects themselves.

Silas


On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 02:38, VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...> wrote:

Hi Brian/Todd/Bob/all,

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.

Best,
Vipin
 

dlt.nyc
Vipin Bharathan
Enterprise Blockchain Consultant


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!
 
Hi Brian,

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?

Respectfully,
Todd


Upcoming Event: Hyperledger Caliper Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thu, 09/26/2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-reminder

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

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

When: Thursday, 26 September 2019

View Event

Organizer: community-architects@...

Description: The Hyperledger Caliper update to the TSC was due 23 September, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on 26 September, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


Sep 19 TSC call canceled

Arnaud Le Hors
 

Hi all,
I apologize for the late notice but I'm going to cancel this week's call due to a combination of a light agenda and logistical challenges on my end.

I do want to point out that several quarterly reports are overdue. And I encourage TSC members to chime in on the various open issues so that we can make progress towards proposed resolutions that can be brought up to the TSC for approval. See: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Pending+topics+for+the+TSC
Thanks.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM

1181 - 1200 of 3866