Date   

Re: Taking another look at project maturity rating

David Boswell
 

+1 to Hart's comments.  There are definitely limitations to having an analysis of a project that is based on a single bit of information.  And in addition to using a maturity model to signal the status of a project, it also provides a clear roadmap to a project for what would be involved with evolving and becoming more mature.

I've done some work with maturity models in other communities and wrote an article about it a while ago if people are interested in reading more about measuring the maturity of a community and how that compares with other community metrics.


That article also points to a community maturity model from the Community Roundtable.  You can take a look at the framework they have to get an example of what this could look like.  I'm not recommending that we adopt their framework -- I think there is value in creating our own based on the dynamics of our community -- but it gives you a good idea of what a maturity model looks like.


Thanks,
David


On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:15 PM hmontgomery@... <hmontgomery@...> wrote:
Hi Arnaud (and everyone),

Thanks for the email.  

Yes, this was something that I brought up when we were discussing moving the Besu project from incubation to active status (although I don't believe the idea was entirely mine).  The motivation was the following:  active status is essentially a single bit of information that says whether or not the TSC believes that a project has a healthy and robust community.  Since different people and groups may care about different facets of the community, the argument was that it might make sense to just make public all of the community metrics that we could and then let people decide for themselves.

At the time, the TSC thought it was still important to give projects the active status "stamp of approval," so we didn't change anything, although we did agree that it would be good to make more community metrics public.  Since then, Ry and the other community architects have done a great job setting up the community bridge analytics for projects (https://lfanalytics.io/projects/hyperledger if you haven't seen it), which provides pretty much all of the metrics we asked for in the original discussion.  So I'd argue that much of the information is, in fact, already public like we wanted.

The big question for me at this point is whether active status is worth achieving for projects.  We aren't seemingly tying it to a "featured release" (i.e. 1.0 anymore) or any kind of marketing restrictions, so I don't believe there are a lot of incentives for projects to shoot for active status.  The approval process itself was seemingly long and difficult for Besu, and, at least in my experience, people outside Hyperledger seem to not know (or care) about active versus incubation status, so it doesn't seem like something that projects are trying to achieve.  A project like Aries, at least from my perspective, seems like it should be able to easily clear the bar for active status with a little bit of work (although there are some milestones they are missing--like the CII badge).  I obviously can't speak for them, but I'm guessing there's not a lot of urgency for active status due to the lack of incentives.

So personally, I do think we should take a look at active status, although we may not want to end up getting rid of it.  I don't know if others feel this way, though, or if a new TSC will feel this way either, so I'm not sure whether we should dig into this discussion in detail.  It may be something that we can't finish before the new TSC starts, at which point there may be large deviations in TSC opinion.  I'll defer to others as to the general level of interest in this discussion.

This brings me to another point that I wanted to bring up:  I think it will be useful to spend a bit of time (maybe half a TSC meeting) discussing the past year in terms of what the TSC has accomplished, what it has discussed, what it has decided to do, and what it decided not to change.  The current TSC could then present this to the new TSC in some form, either as a document or during a meeting verbally.

There are two factors in play here:  one, due to the expansion of the TSC and some existing members not running for reelection, we are guaranteed to have a lot of new members on the new TSC, some of whom may not currently regularly attend TSC meetings, and thus may not be as familiar with the discussions of the past year as old members.  In addition, the TSC sometimes spends a lot of time rehashing topics that were previously discussed.  Having a "cheat sheet" for the big topics of the year might be very useful for avoiding duplicating work/discussion, since most people probably don't want to have to go back and read the individual minutes of all of the meetings of the year.  In other words, we probably don't want to have the subprojects discussion for the 20th time without at least first filling people in on the past decision-making process.

What do people think about this?  Does it seem like a good idea, or a waste of time?

If you've made it this far, thank you very much for reading.  Please feel free to respond with questions, comments, or criticism.

Thanks,
Hart

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:56 AM
To: TSC <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Taking another look at project maturity rating
 
During the Member Summit that recently took place a proposal that surfaced and gained quite a bit of support was to investigate the possibility of moving away from the current approach based on the binary Incubation/Active status in favor of a maturity rating system where various items could be measured with a level of completion as a percentage.

This is not an entirely new idea as we've discussed something like that in the past, Hart I think first came up with the idea of some kind of badging mechanism that could be displayed on the website, giving the reader the info to judge on the maturity of a project by themselves rather than trying to encompass all the different dimensions at play into a single metric.

As we know, several projects are stuck in Incubation due to a lack of diversity and the current rating system doesn't provide for a way to communicate that two projects in Incubation might be very different with regard to activity level, size of user community, etc. A finer grained rating system would address this problem.

I'd like us to start a discussion on this on this week's call and see whether there is enough interest to warrant investing in developing a proposal.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM


Reminder: Call today at 12 noon EDT (16:00 UTC). Identity WG

Vipin Bharathan
 

Hi all,

Please note that the zoom link is different because of the use of a passcode; newly required for zoom.
The call is at 12 noon EDT (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday the 30th of September.
Minutes and Agenda at:

The main event: a presentation on GADI (Global Architecture for Digital Identity) byRamesh Kesanupalli, the CEO of Digital Trust Networks.
Please attend, collaborate, question, contribute!
We expect some members who are into pure SSI to show up and engage...

The mission of GADI is to establish a new trustable identity framework by providing a unique digital address to everyone.
The initial implementation uses Indy et. al.
We will have an extensive demo of GADI on a later call.

During the presentation we may have some questions:
  • How can GADI be used in Hyperledger Blockchain based applications? Provenance, Digital Finance, Healthcare, Digital Government?
  • What about correlation risk with the provision of a universal identity?
  • Where does GADI deviate from the strict principles of SSI?
  • How useful is it for non-persons or Enterprises? What about IOT devices? Are there links to LEI?
  • Such identifiers are already part of many national infrastructures: SSN in the US, Aadhaar in India and so on. How will GADI interact with them?

Best,
Vipin


TSC agenda for Oct 1, 2020

Arnaud Le Hors
 

Hi all,

We actually have a pretty full agenda this week:
https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/TSC/2020-10-01+TSC+Agenda

If by chance we have time for it, per Hart's suggestion, we can start talking about this year's TSC activities, otherwise we'll do that next week.

Talk to you soon.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM


Re: Taking another look at project maturity rating

Hart Montgomery
 

Hi Arnaud (and everyone),

Thanks for the email.  

Yes, this was something that I brought up when we were discussing moving the Besu project from incubation to active status (although I don't believe the idea was entirely mine).  The motivation was the following:  active status is essentially a single bit of information that says whether or not the TSC believes that a project has a healthy and robust community.  Since different people and groups may care about different facets of the community, the argument was that it might make sense to just make public all of the community metrics that we could and then let people decide for themselves.

At the time, the TSC thought it was still important to give projects the active status "stamp of approval," so we didn't change anything, although we did agree that it would be good to make more community metrics public.  Since then, Ry and the other community architects have done a great job setting up the community bridge analytics for projects (https://lfanalytics.io/projects/hyperledger if you haven't seen it), which provides pretty much all of the metrics we asked for in the original discussion.  So I'd argue that much of the information is, in fact, already public like we wanted.

The big question for me at this point is whether active status is worth achieving for projects.  We aren't seemingly tying it to a "featured release" (i.e. 1.0 anymore) or any kind of marketing restrictions, so I don't believe there are a lot of incentives for projects to shoot for active status.  The approval process itself was seemingly long and difficult for Besu, and, at least in my experience, people outside Hyperledger seem to not know (or care) about active versus incubation status, so it doesn't seem like something that projects are trying to achieve.  A project like Aries, at least from my perspective, seems like it should be able to easily clear the bar for active status with a little bit of work (although there are some milestones they are missing--like the CII badge).  I obviously can't speak for them, but I'm guessing there's not a lot of urgency for active status due to the lack of incentives.

So personally, I do think we should take a look at active status, although we may not want to end up getting rid of it.  I don't know if others feel this way, though, or if a new TSC will feel this way either, so I'm not sure whether we should dig into this discussion in detail.  It may be something that we can't finish before the new TSC starts, at which point there may be large deviations in TSC opinion.  I'll defer to others as to the general level of interest in this discussion.

This brings me to another point that I wanted to bring up:  I think it will be useful to spend a bit of time (maybe half a TSC meeting) discussing the past year in terms of what the TSC has accomplished, what it has discussed, what it has decided to do, and what it decided not to change.  The current TSC could then present this to the new TSC in some form, either as a document or during a meeting verbally.

There are two factors in play here:  one, due to the expansion of the TSC and some existing members not running for reelection, we are guaranteed to have a lot of new members on the new TSC, some of whom may not currently regularly attend TSC meetings, and thus may not be as familiar with the discussions of the past year as old members.  In addition, the TSC sometimes spends a lot of time rehashing topics that were previously discussed.  Having a "cheat sheet" for the big topics of the year might be very useful for avoiding duplicating work/discussion, since most people probably don't want to have to go back and read the individual minutes of all of the meetings of the year.  In other words, we probably don't want to have the subprojects discussion for the 20th time without at least first filling people in on the past decision-making process.

What do people think about this?  Does it seem like a good idea, or a waste of time?

If you've made it this far, thank you very much for reading.  Please feel free to respond with questions, comments, or criticism.

Thanks,
Hart


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:56 AM
To: TSC <tsc@...>
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Taking another look at project maturity rating
 
During the Member Summit that recently took place a proposal that surfaced and gained quite a bit of support was to investigate the possibility of moving away from the current approach based on the binary Incubation/Active status in favor of a maturity rating system where various items could be measured with a level of completion as a percentage.

This is not an entirely new idea as we've discussed something like that in the past, Hart I think first came up with the idea of some kind of badging mechanism that could be displayed on the website, giving the reader the info to judge on the maturity of a project by themselves rather than trying to encompass all the different dimensions at play into a single metric.

As we know, several projects are stuck in Incubation due to a lack of diversity and the current rating system doesn't provide for a way to communicate that two projects in Incubation might be very different with regard to activity level, size of user community, etc. A finer grained rating system would address this problem.

I'd like us to start a discussion on this on this week's call and see whether there is enough interest to warrant investing in developing a proposal.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM


Taking another look at project maturity rating

Arnaud Le Hors
 

During the Member Summit that recently took place a proposal that surfaced and gained quite a bit of support was to investigate the possibility of moving away from the current approach based on the binary Incubation/Active status in favor of a maturity rating system where various items could be measured with a level of completion as a percentage.

This is not an entirely new idea as we've discussed something like that in the past, Hart I think first came up with the idea of some kind of badging mechanism that could be displayed on the website, giving the reader the info to judge on the maturity of a project by themselves rather than trying to encompass all the different dimensions at play into a single metric.

As we know, several projects are stuck in Incubation due to a lack of diversity and the current rating system doesn't provide for a way to communicate that two projects in Incubation might be very different with regard to activity level, size of user community, etc. A finer grained rating system would address this problem.

I'd like us to start a discussion on this on this week's call and see whether there is enough interest to warrant investing in developing a proposal.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM


TSC Election, part two.

Ry Jones
 

The election will restart today. Twenty one ballots were cast this weekend, and there was an incorrect name on the ballot.
Ry

--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger


Re: Call for Partnerships to build infrastructure for a Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program #cal-invite #cal-notice #tsc #tsc-project-update #tsc-wg-update

Jayakar <Jayakar_J_Joseph@...>
 

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your interest in GCHMC program. You may please contact, United Nations Global Market Place (UNGM), for getting our licensing to this technology, to proceed with further updating and adaptations, through Public-Private Partnership with United Nations.

With Best Regards & Thanks

Jayakar Joseph Johnson

www.johnsonsmedicom.org



From: Jonathan Levi (HACERA) <jonathan@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 6:36 PM
To: Jayakar <Jayakar_J_Joseph@...>
Cc: Hyperledger TSC <tsc@...>; fabric@... <fabric@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Call for Partnerships to build infrastructure for a Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program #cal-invite #cal-notice #tsc #tsc-project-update #tsc-wg-update
 
Dear Jayakar,

First, just to say that I believe that the Hyperledger TSC mailing list may not be the best mailing list for such a call for partnerships - especially during TSC Election days.

However, taking a look at your proposed architecture (I could not resist) - my technical feedback is that the problem at hand (COVID Mutations Control Problem) is way way bigger than putting everything on a single vendor’s infrastructure. So assuming that all the world will connect to a single vendor (willingly) - will limit this solution, by design.

Having said that, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and other vendors already support (and still support) a huge infrastructure project that allows multiple vendors to collaborate, using multiple clouds, with different APIs, combining both data and app registries and it has been in production for quite some time.



We use a flavor of Hyperledger Fabric, with extended privacy measures, identity management, GDPR-compliant workflows/data storage, retention, the right to be forgotten with some amazing support that was offered by so many other vendors, partners and… friends ;-)
If you look around, you will see more than just Cobol, or IBM technology, all working in tandem (from Microsoft Power BI, Oracle Business Analytics, Splunk, etc.)

This, btw, is the power of blockchain - allowing us all to SHARE the infrastructure. We have been spending several weeks in looking at the various technologies, offerings, design, architecture and design - and found it a lot better to build it as a decentralized network, with no single point of failure.


We are working in two parallel stream:
1. Infrastructure -  for the sensitive data/information (such as trial data, with privacy-preserving measures, that you will need for working with sensitive trial data)
2. Public facing. - where people can easily build models (Statistical Analysis, Machine Learning models, AI) and run them (again, thanks to IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and the many other Infrastructure / Platform Enabling Partners) - who contributed later on also the massive compute power…. that now allows us to run and support full hackathons (against the anonymized data):


And if you are an IBMer or an “ex-IBMer” (like myself), you probably could not have missed the global Call for Code this year: https://app.mipasa.org/hackathons/call-for-code-2020



Either way, I am sure you will be happy to learn that we have MiPasa nodes also on IBM’s cloud - so it may be easy to connect the machines you plan on running such apps to MiPasa’s Governable Data Hub.


At any rate, please feel free to reach out directly (see below) - would love to see how we can partner and help - and connect you with many others - but again, ONLY if you are happy to create a multi-vendor solution… that does not force anyone to use a specific proprietary solution or cloud.
This is the pandemic of the century. Let’s use the right tools/frameworks for it. We (/people here) have spent years on building the tech. Let’s use the tech in a way that allows us all to and extract its full potential...


Thank you,
Jonathan Levi


https://hacera.com  - HACERA: Blockchain with Confidence
https://unbounded.network - Unbounded Data Economies 
https://mipasa.org  - My Pass: Because I Care



On Sep 27, 2020, at 1:19 AM, Jayakar <Jayakar_J_Joseph@...> wrote:

Expecting Partnerships to build infrastructure for a Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program.
<20200927_GCHMCPPlugins_and_Interfaces.pdf>


Re: Call for Partnerships to build infrastructure for a Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program #cal-invite #cal-notice #tsc #tsc-project-update #tsc-wg-update

Jonathan Levi (HACERA)
 

Dear Jayakar,

First, just to say that I believe that the Hyperledger TSC mailing list may not be the best mailing list for such a call for partnerships - especially during TSC Election days.

However, taking a look at your proposed architecture (I could not resist) - my technical feedback is that the problem at hand (COVID Mutations Control Problem) is way way bigger than putting everything on a single vendor’s infrastructure. So assuming that all the world will connect to a single vendor (willingly) - will limit this solution, by design.

Having said that, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and other vendors already support (and still support) a huge infrastructure project that allows multiple vendors to collaborate, using multiple clouds, with different APIs, combining both data and app registries and it has been in production for quite some time.



We use a flavor of Hyperledger Fabric, with extended privacy measures, identity management, GDPR-compliant workflows/data storage, retention, the right to be forgotten with some amazing support that was offered by so many other vendors, partners and… friends ;-)
If you look around, you will see more than just Cobol, or IBM technology, all working in tandem (from Microsoft Power BI, Oracle Business Analytics, Splunk, etc.)

This, btw, is the power of blockchain - allowing us all to SHARE the infrastructure. We have been spending several weeks in looking at the various technologies, offerings, design, architecture and design - and found it a lot better to build it as a decentralized network, with no single point of failure.


We are working in two parallel stream:
1. Infrastructure -  for the sensitive data/information (such as trial data, with privacy-preserving measures, that you will need for working with sensitive trial data)
2. Public facing. - where people can easily build models (Statistical Analysis, Machine Learning models, AI) and run them (again, thanks to IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and the many other Infrastructure / Platform Enabling Partners) - who contributed later on also the massive compute power…. that now allows us to run and support full hackathons (against the anonymized data):


And if you are an IBMer or an “ex-IBMer” (like myself), you probably could not have missed the global Call for Code this year: https://app.mipasa.org/hackathons/call-for-code-2020



Either way, I am sure you will be happy to learn that we have MiPasa nodes also on IBM’s cloud - so it may be easy to connect the machines you plan on running such apps to MiPasa’s Governable Data Hub.


At any rate, please feel free to reach out directly (see below) - would love to see how we can partner and help - and connect you with many others - but again, ONLY if you are happy to create a multi-vendor solution… that does not force anyone to use a specific proprietary solution or cloud.
This is the pandemic of the century. Let’s use the right tools/frameworks for it. We (/people here) have spent years on building the tech. Let’s use the tech in a way that allows us all to and extract its full potential...


Thank you,
Jonathan Levi


https://hacera.com  - HACERA: Blockchain with Confidence
https://unbounded.network - Unbounded Data Economies 
https://mipasa.org  - My Pass: Because I Care



On Sep 27, 2020, at 1:19 AM, Jayakar <Jayakar_J_Joseph@...> wrote:

Expecting Partnerships to build infrastructure for a Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program.
<20200927_GCHMCPPlugins_and_Interfaces.pdf>


Call for Partnerships to build infrastructure for a Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program #cal-invite #cal-notice #tsc #tsc-project-update #tsc-wg-update

Jayakar <Jayakar_J_Joseph@...>
 

Expecting Partnerships to build infrastructure for a Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program.


Next meeting of the IDWG on Wednesday 2020-09-30

Vipin Bharathan
 

Hi all,

Please note that the zoom link is different because of the use of a passcode; newly required for zoom.
The call is at 12 noon EDT (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday the 30th of September.
Minutes and Agenda at:

The main event:  a presentation on GADI (Global Architecture for Digital Identity) by Ramesh Kesanupalli, the CEO of Digital Trust Networks.
Please attend, collaborate, question, contribute!
We expect some members who are into pure SSI to show up and engage...

The mission of GADI is to establish a new trustable identity framework by providing a unique digital address to everyone.
The initial implementation uses Indy et. al.
We will have an extensive demo of GADI on a later call.

After the presentation we may have some questions:
  • How can GADI be used in Hyperledger Blockchain based applications? Provenance, Digital Finance, Healthcare, Digital Government?
  • What about correlation risk in the provision of a universal identity?
  • How useful is it for non-persons or Enterprises? What about IOT devices? Are there links to LEI?
  • Such identifiers are already part of many national infrastructures: SSN in the US, Aadhaar in India and so on. How will GADI interact with them?
Best,
Vipin


Updated Event: Technical Steering Committee (TSC) #cal-invite

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

Technical Steering Committee (TSC)

When:
Thursday, 24 September 2020
7:00am to 8:00am
(UTC-07:00) America/Los Angeles
Repeats: Weekly on Thursday

Where:
https://zoom.us/j/93304666234?pwd=OEswSmpjS2oxeWE2NmZId2hBanBnQT09

Organizer: Technical Steering Committee (TSC) community-architects@...

Description:
Hyperledger Community is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Technical Steering Committee (TSC)
Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.

Weekly: https://zoom.us/meeting/tJcud-2uqD0oGdCRhSPPVudkYn_hZb-W7SRT/ics?icsToken=98tyKuCrrTsuHNKTshqDRowqA4igLO7wpiFBjad-rhfWMxBldwf9D-x9Ooh9Xe-H

Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/93304666234?pwd=OEswSmpjS2oxeWE2NmZId2hBanBnQT09
Meeting ID: 933 0466 6234
Passcode: 069643


Hyperledger TSC Election Candidates and Start of Voting

Brian Behlendorf
 

Dear Hyperledger Community Members,

I am pleased to announce the following slate of candidates for the 2020-2021 Hyperledger Technical Steering Committee (TSC) election. You are voting to elect 15 people from the 29 candidates listed below:

You will be using Cornell's CIVS system, using the Condorcet-IRV completion rule. It is a ranked voting system that allows you to weigh candidates by placing them in an order of preference.

A ballot will be sent by email to all registered voters by the start of voting. Voting will begin at 12:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time (GMT -7) on Saturday, September 26th 2020 and continue until 11:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time (GMT -7) on Saturday, October 10th 2020.

If you are a voter and do not see this ballot by Monday morning, first check your spam boxes as it may come from an unrecognized source. If you don't find it there, please send an email to election@....

The TSC is responsible for setting the direction and character of the Hyperledger community across all its technical projects. This is your chance to influence that direction and character. The TSC should represent a broad range of voices from across the Hyperledger community. I encourage you to take the time to read the candidate statements linked from this email and consider your vote carefully.

Thank you,

Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger @ The Linux Foundation


Changes to Hyperledger-hosted Zoom meetings

Ry Jones
 

On September 27 Zoom is implementing a mandatory functionality change. Zoom will now enforce all meetings to have either a passcode or a waiting room. If no passcode is enabled, attendees will automatically be placed into a waiting room and the meeting hosts will need to add the attendees to the meeting manually.

 

You should be looking for updated meeting invites from lists.hyperledger.org that contain an embedded passcode as part of the zoom meeting URL. These notices will be tagged with #cal-invite.

 

Please be sure to sync your calendars if the updates are not reflected on your calendar tools. You can always subscribe to the calendar feed to stay up to date with any meeting changes by following the instructions below:

 

Opt into a Hyperledger subgroup mailing list (if you wish to receive calendar updates and subscribe to calendar feed) 

  • Log into https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/main

  • Click on Subgroups to the left and this will display the list of available subgroups for Hyperledger 

  • Navigate to the subgroup of your choice

  • Click +Join This Group toward the near bottom of the page and this will add you to the group.

Subscribe to a meeting calendar

  • Login to lists.hyperledger.org for the specific Hyperledger list you are interested in

  • For example, click the "Your Calendar" icon on the left: https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/tsc/calendar

  • Scroll to the bottom of the page

  • Click the "Subscribe to Calendar" button

  • copy the URL that is generated

  • Paste the URL using whatever method your calendar reader uses for internet calendar subscriptions

All Hyperledger public meetings can also be viewed on the wiki.


Inviting discussions to Collaborate for Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutation Control Program #cal-invite #cal-notice #tsc #tsc-project-update #tsc-wg-update

Jayakar <Jayakar_J_Joseph@...>
 

Requesting discussions to proceed with partnerships for the development of infrastructure to, Global Digital Corona Virus Harmful Mutations Control Program.


Cancelled Event: Technical Steering Committee (TSC) - Thursday, 24 September 2020 #cal-cancelled

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

Cancelled: Technical Steering Committee (TSC)

This event has been cancelled.

When:
Thursday, 24 September 2020
7:00am to 8:00am
(UTC-07:00) America/Los Angeles

Where:
https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community.backup

Organizer: Technical Steering Committee (TSC) community-architects@...

Description:
Hyperledger Community is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Technical Steering Committee (TSC)
Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.
Weekly: https://zoom.us/meeting/tJcud-2uqD0oGdCRhSPPVudkYn_hZb-W7SRT/ics?icsToken=98tyKuCrrTsuHNKTshqDRowqA4igLO7wpiFBjad-rhfWMxBldwf9D-x9Ooh9Xe-H Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/93304666234?pwd=OEswSmpjS2oxeWE2NmZId2hBanBnQT09 Meeting ID: 933 0466 6234 Passcode: 069643 One tap mobile +12532158782,,93304666234# US (Tacoma) +13462487799,,93304666234# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) 855 880 1246 US Toll-free 877 369 0926 US Toll-free +1 587 328 1099 Canada +1 647 374 4685 Canada +1 647 558 0588 Canada +1 778 907 2071 Canada +1 204 272 7920 Canada +1 438 809 7799 Canada 855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free Meeting ID: 933 0466 6234 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/apwhVeEz2


TSC call canceled

Arnaud Le Hors
 

Hi,
I'm not aware of anything requiring our immediate attention so I'm going to cancel this week's call. Next week I'd like to start discussing some of the take-aways from the Member Summit which pertain to the TSC.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM


Capital Markets Special Interest Group Call on September 23, 2020 at 10 am EDT

VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Hi all,


The Hyperledger Capital Markets SIG continues its work on CBDCs. This time for a disconnected approach using Smart Cards. "Springboarding CBDC Into Reality" by Sergio Mello, CEO of Tangem. A fresh look at emulating the peer-to-peer nature of cash.
Tangem is completing the required VISA and Mastercard certification processes to enable digital assets and CBDC to ride on the existing EMVCo rails. Tangem focuses on secure microelectronics, modern cryptography, decentralization, open-source software, and interoperability to provide a platform for industrial-grade solutions. This is especially true in leapfrogging in developing countries to solve the last mile problem for CBDC.

Where: https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community.backup

When: September 23, 10:00 am EDT (14:00 UTC)

Discuss: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/CMSIG/2020-09-23


Please attend the call; listen and contribute.


Best,
Vipin

dlt.nyc
Vipin Bharathan
Digital Transformation Consultant
Financial Services (Blockchain, ML, Design Thinking)
vip@...


Updated Event: Technical Steering Committee (TSC) #cal-invite

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

Technical Steering Committee (TSC)

When:
Thursday, 24 September 2020
7:00am to 8:00am
(UTC-07:00) America/Los Angeles
Repeats: Weekly on Thursday

Where:
https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community.backup

Organizer: Technical Steering Committee (TSC) community-architects@...

Description:
Hyperledger Community is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Technical Steering Committee (TSC)
Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.
Weekly: https://zoom.us/meeting/tJcud-2uqD0oGdCRhSPPVudkYn_hZb-W7SRT/ics?icsToken=98tyKuCrrTsuHNKTshqDRowqA4igLO7wpiFBjad-rhfWMxBldwf9D-x9Ooh9Xe-H Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/93304666234?pwd=OEswSmpjS2oxeWE2NmZId2hBanBnQT09 Meeting ID: 933 0466 6234 Passcode: 069643 One tap mobile +12532158782,,93304666234# US (Tacoma) +13462487799,,93304666234# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) 855 880 1246 US Toll-free 877 369 0926 US Toll-free +1 587 328 1099 Canada +1 647 374 4685 Canada +1 647 558 0588 Canada +1 778 907 2071 Canada +1 204 272 7920 Canada +1 438 809 7799 Canada 855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free Meeting ID: 933 0466 6234 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/apwhVeEz2


TSC agenda for Sep 17, 2020

Arnaud Le Hors
 

Hi,
I apologize for sending this so late but in response to Danno's request to have time to discuss the issue on CalVer, let's have a call today. Maybe we can keep it short?

https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/TSC/2020-09-17+TSC+Agenda

Cheers.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM


[Hyperledger Burrow] 2020 Q3 update

Silas Davis
 


Let me include the summary here on which a discussion would be useful:

This quarter has certainly been a fallow quarter for Burrow, mostly as a consequence of Covid and in the case of Monax the need to refocus on our product built on top of Burrow. We do have more work planned and another developer coming in to work on the SQL mapping layer Vent at the end of this year to extend its functionality.

Inevitably this raises considerations that have lingered around Burrow and the level of development activity from a wider community. I think it would be premature at this stage to talk about end-of-life for Burrow as I am aware of other companies taking an interest (such as CertiK). However I think the next two quarters will be critical for Burrow and on that timescale we should revisit this question and decide whether there is a realistic prospect of Burrow leaving incubation (chiefly in having sufficient contribution-weighted contributor diversity).

I do expect Q1 2021 to be quite active in terms of work that Monax needs to do on Burrow so one way or another Burrow does need an active development home in the medium term, but I defer to the TSC to judge whether Hyperledger is that home. If we are able to garner greater community involvement then I think it could, but so far with the time and resources I have available to me for community building that has not really happened.

641 - 660 of 3794