Hi Chris, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with this. I don’t know the full details of the interoperability proposals, so I can’t say for sure, but I can elaborate from my experiences on Ursa. Ursa is

Hi Chris, Thanks for the response. First, on bloat: we avoid bloat by having customizable builds (that only incorporate what people themselves need). For instance, right now we have and Indy-SDK build

I think we need to clarify what, exactly, a compound project *is* before we can say whether or not they make sense as projects. Does the compound project provide multiple different functionalities tha

Hi Everyone, I spent last week at a Dagstuhl seminar on permissioned blockchain (thanks Mic for getting me the invitation!). If you aren’t aware what this is, it is basically an unstructured week at a

Hi Everyone, Thanks for all of the responses to my initial email. Rather than respond to all of them individually, I’ll try to address some points below. Hopefully this will be easier to follow than m

+1 to this. I think it captures my sentiments on the general problem really well. “I'm an introvert, and I really don't want to ask anyone for help.” You could probably have a whole different (but sim

This looks like a Fabric-specific proposal. Can any of the Fabric maintainers comment on this? Thanks, Hart

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for the response. You are correct: I had, in fact, envisioned this as a bridge between maintainers/developers and researchers: researchers could contribute relevant research (and cod

Hi Dan, No, not the architecture working group. While it is wonderful, It is not a research-based group. I think this new “[*]group” should have two major focuses: (1) discussing research topics, idea

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for the response. Your charter suggestion is perfect—that’s exactly what I had in mind, and more well-written than what I suggested earlier. Thanks, Hart

First of all, are we changing the time? I’ll be in Tokyo but my availability is a little bit dicey, as I have a lot of meetings planned. Thanks, Hart

Hi Brian, I wanted to follow up and say that I think a separate graphic depicting the structure of the community would be a great idea. If we do this right, it would help new people find who they need

Hi Everyone, Chris, thanks for bringing this up. This makes a lot of sense for us as a community. We are a far bigger organization than when we started, and it only makes sense to increase representat

Hi Arnaud, This is a little bit orthogonal to what you and Vipin are discussing, but it’s still relevant, so I’ll mention it here. I think a lot of people are, in fact, using SIGs for relatively techn

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for the clarification, and sorry I misinterpreted your original emails. Your argument makes complete sense. Do you think we should roll the SIG status into the discussion on WG refor

Hi Brian, Thanks for the response. I’m preparing a post on WGs that I’ll make later today on the wiki that should hopefully address the WG concerns here. I like your description of the differences bet

+1 to this idea. Thanks for bringing it up Shawn. I think it would be a great idea to have such a library, as long as we can reasonably infer that people will be able to agree on a consensus interface

Hi Mark, As someone who regularly participates in the architecture WG, I don’t think it has the proper set of people right now to drive something like this. What we would really need for this hypothet

Hi Everyone, Some points on this: I don’t think it matters what we name these groups. If we want to keep the name of “working group,” that’s fine. The main point we have noticed is that long-term, wor

+1. This is a great idea. I don’t think it hurts anyone if TSC elections have a longer voting period. And also +1 to Chris’s idea in the next email of moving the election a little bit later. The curre