SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects


Kuhrt, Tracy A.
 

On January 11th, I provided a report back on the SIG chair meeting that I attended. On our TSC call on January 14th, we had some initial discussions about each of the items that I reported back on. It was suggested that I break out the individual items so that if there were any additional thoughts on the topic that we could discuss in a single thread instead of mixing topics.

 

This is the email to discuss item #3 Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects.  Would papers that SIGs created have value for the TSC and for projects in terms of requirements?  Are there ways we can make the Labs process better?  Vipin shared that there were many difficulties using Labs for the Telecom SIG.  Can we review the current Labs process to see how we can remove roadblocks and make it easier?

 

Here is what has been mentioned on the previous thread so far regarding this topic:

 

From Tracy:

it seems that there may be some friction in the current lab process that is limiting the usefulness of the Hyperledger Labs for SIGs. It would be helpful to hear from people who have attempted to create a lab and ran into struggles. One of those struggles that we have talked about in the past is the Lab Sponsor. We have discussed how best to gather a list of people who would be willing to act as a sponsor that we could link to within the overall Labs process.

 

From Arun:

Let us request Vipin to join one of the TSC meetings and list down each of the concerns. I remember, this topic due for discussion along with struggles that a project faced to move from incubation to active state. My personal experience of raising a new labs request has been an easy and swift.

 

Tracy




This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Accenture and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned by our systems for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with Accenture policy. Your privacy is important to us. Accenture uses your personal data only in compliance with data protection laws. For further information on how Accenture processes your personal data, please see our privacy statement at https://www.accenture.com/us-en/privacy-policy.
______________________________________________________________________________________

www.accenture.com


Arnaud Le Hors
 

To the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like the TSC to consider (again) dropping the requirement for a Lab Sponsor. The whole point of requiring lab proposals to have a sponsor was to filter out possible junk that might be submitted. I claim that the Lab Stewards can do that, and in fact already do that, just fine.

Since the last time I made this proposal it was turned down, I will ask that anyone who insists on keeping the requirement for a Lab Sponsor be put on the list of possible sponsors advertised to lab proposers. :-)
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Kuhrt, Tracy A. via lists.hyperledger.org" <tracy.a.kuhrt=accenture.com@...>
To:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Cc:        "SIG-Chairs@..." <SIG-Chairs@...>
Date:        02/04/2021 11:02 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
Sent by:        tsc@...


On January 11th, I provided a report back on the SIG chair meetingthat I attended. On our TSC call on January 14th, we had some initial discussions about each of the items that I reported back on. It was suggested that I break out the individual items so that if there were any additional thoughts on the topic that we could discuss in a single thread instead of mixing topics.

 

This is the email to discuss item #3 Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects.  Would papers that SIGs created have value for the TSC and for projects in terms of requirements?  Are there ways we can make the Labs process better?  Vipin shared that there were many difficulties using Labs for the Telecom SIG.  Can we review the current Labs process to see how we can remove roadblocks and make it easier?

 

Here is what has been mentioned on the previous thread so far regarding this topic:

 

From Tracy:

it seems that there may be some friction in the current lab process that is limiting the usefulness of the Hyperledger Labs for SIGs. It would be helpful to hear from people who have attempted to create a lab and ran into struggles. One of those struggles that we have talked about in the past is the Lab Sponsor. We have discussed how best to gather a list of people who would be willing to act as a sponsor that we could link to within the overall Labs process.

 

From Arun:

Let us request Vipin to join one of the TSC meetings and list down each of the concerns. I remember, this topic due for discussion along with struggles that a project faced to move from incubation to active state. My personal experience of raising a new labs request has been an easy and swift.

 

Tracy





This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Accenture and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned by our systems for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with Accenture policy. Your privacy is important to us. Accenture uses your personal data only in compliance with data protection laws. For further information on how Accenture processes your personal data, please see our privacy statement at
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/privacy-policy.
______________________________________________________________________________________

www.accenture.com




VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

As a lab steward I agree with Arnaud on this one. We struggle all the time with lab proposers looking for sponsors. I have stepped in numerous times to sponsor projects that I find worthy. Nothing should stand in the way of contributions to labs.
Best,
Vipin


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


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Arnaud Le Hors via lists.hyperledger.org <lehors=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:58 AM
To: tracy.a.kuhrt@... <tracy.a.kuhrt@...>
Cc: SIG-Chairs@... <SIG-Chairs@...>; tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
 
To the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like the TSC to consider (again) dropping the requirement for a Lab Sponsor. The whole point of requiring lab proposals to have a sponsor was to filter out possible junk that might be submitted. I claim that the Lab Stewards can do that, and in fact already do that, just fine.

Since the last time I made this proposal it was turned down, I will ask that anyone who insists on keeping the requirement for a Lab Sponsor be put on the list of possible sponsors advertised to lab proposers. :-)
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "Kuhrt, Tracy A. via lists.hyperledger.org" <tracy.a.kuhrt=accenture.com@...>
To:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Cc:        "SIG-Chairs@..." <SIG-Chairs@...>
Date:        02/04/2021 11:02 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
Sent by:        tsc@...


On January 11th, I provided a report back on the SIG chair meetingthat I attended. On our TSC call on January 14th, we had some initial discussions about each of the items that I reported back on. It was suggested that I break out the individual items so that if there were any additional thoughts on the topic that we could discuss in a single thread instead of mixing topics.

 

This is the email to discuss item #3 Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects.  Would papers that SIGs created have value for the TSC and for projects in terms of requirements?  Are there ways we can make the Labs process better?  Vipin shared that there were many difficulties using Labs for the Telecom SIG.  Can we review the current Labs process to see how we can remove roadblocks and make it easier?

 

Here is what has been mentioned on the previous thread so far regarding this topic:

 

From Tracy:

it seems that there may be some friction in the current lab process that is limiting the usefulness of the Hyperledger Labs for SIGs. It would be helpful to hear from people who have attempted to create a lab and ran into struggles. One of those struggles that we have talked about in the past is the Lab Sponsor. We have discussed how best to gather a list of people who would be willing to act as a sponsor that we could link to within the overall Labs process.

 

From Arun:

Let us request Vipin to join one of the TSC meetings and list down each of the concerns. I remember, this topic due for discussion along with struggles that a project faced to move from incubation to active state. My personal experience of raising a new labs request has been an easy and swift.

 

Tracy





This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Accenture and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned by our systems for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with Accenture policy. Your privacy is important to us. Accenture uses your personal data only in compliance with data protection laws. For further information on how Accenture processes your personal data, please see our privacy statement at
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/privacy-policy.
______________________________________________________________________________________

www.accenture.com




Arun S M
 

It could be because I don't know about it much further.
Is the sponsor of the project held accountable with additional responsibility?

For example, does it become the sponsor's responsibility to ensure the project follows Hyperledger's guidelines, guide through for a couple of months for best practices etc?
If this is the case then let's discuss how these can be delegated off from the sponsor's shoulder to anybody else in the community.

Regards,
Arun


VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Currently, there are no asks for the sponsor except to stand behind the process of application, they are not expected to engage beyond that point.

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


From: Arun .S.M. <arun.s.m.cse@...>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:05 AM
To: VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...>
Cc: tracy.a.kuhrt@... <tracy.a.kuhrt@...>; lehors@... <lehors@...>; SIG-Chairs@... <SIG-Chairs@...>; tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
 
It could be because I don't know about it much further.
Is the sponsor of the project held accountable with additional responsibility?

For example, does it become the sponsor's responsibility to ensure the project follows Hyperledger's guidelines, guide through for a couple of months for best practices etc?
If this is the case then let's discuss how these can be delegated off from the sponsor's shoulder to anybody else in the community.

Regards,
Arun


Brian Behlendorf
 

There are some basic things we need the developers involved with each effort within Labs to do (for example, using DCOs), and some things they should be doing (using processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly; etc). Labs that don't do them create operational, reputational, and potentially legal liability for Hyperledger. That liability is on the shoulders of the TSC and Governing Board, who delegate it down to the Labs stewards.

If the Labs stewards are happy policing for and enforcing the things that must be done, and working with communities on the things that should be done, then great. But the point of Sponsors has always been to fan out those responsibilities and efforts to a larger group who could be trusted to perform those roles. Attaching that limit to other maintainers helped ensure it was people who understood those needs and shoulds (though we could always do a better job documenting them). If there aren't enough volunteers for that work, that quite reasonably sets a limit to the number of projects we should have in Labs. It had very little to do with evaluating the quality of a Labs proposal, except to infer that poor quality proposals might not attract a qualified Sponsor.

The TSC can choose to do away with the Sponsor requirement, but not with the responsibilities for governance. If that's preferred, let's just create a page linking to github repositories (hosted by other organizations) of projects we think are doing good things but are otherwise not overseeing.

Brian

On 2/8/21 6:34 AM, VIPIN BHARATHAN wrote:
Currently, there are no asks for the sponsor except to stand behind the process of application, they are not expected to engage beyond that point.

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


From: Arun .S.M. <arun.s.m.cse@...>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:05 AM
To: VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...>
Cc: tracy.a.kuhrt@... <tracy.a.kuhrt@...>; lehors@... <lehors@...>; SIG-Chairs@... <SIG-Chairs@...>; tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
 
It could be because I don't know about it much further.
Is the sponsor of the project held accountable with additional responsibility?

For example, does it become the sponsor's responsibility to ensure the project follows Hyperledger's guidelines, guide through for a couple of months for best practices etc?
If this is the case then let's discuss how these can be delegated off from the sponsor's shoulder to anybody else in the community.

Regards,
Arun


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Managing Director for Blockchain, Healthcare and Identity
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Brian,

I agree that governance should be imposed. DCOs are enforced by the rules setup inside the labs for example.

Sponsors do not do any of the other tasks than "sponsor" the projects, basically a review of the proposal, Lab Stewards do that as well.

In fact we have been having discussions about "processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly" etc. for all projects, not just the labs. These efforts can be extended to labs as well.
Let us be very clear about what the Sponsors actually do (or don't do) before we say we require them.

Thanks

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


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf via lists.hyperledger.org <bbehlendorf=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 3:05 PM
To: tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
 
There are some basic things we need the developers involved with each effort within Labs to do (for example, using DCOs), and some things they should be doing (using processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly; etc). Labs that don't do them create operational, reputational, and potentially legal liability for Hyperledger. That liability is on the shoulders of the TSC and Governing Board, who delegate it down to the Labs stewards.

If the Labs stewards are happy policing for and enforcing the things that must be done, and working with communities on the things that should be done, then great. But the point of Sponsors has always been to fan out those responsibilities and efforts to a larger group who could be trusted to perform those roles. Attaching that limit to other maintainers helped ensure it was people who understood those needs and shoulds (though we could always do a better job documenting them). If there aren't enough volunteers for that work, that quite reasonably sets a limit to the number of projects we should have in Labs. It had very little to do with evaluating the quality of a Labs proposal, except to infer that poor quality proposals might not attract a qualified Sponsor.

The TSC can choose to do away with the Sponsor requirement, but not with the responsibilities for governance. If that's preferred, let's just create a page linking to github repositories (hosted by other organizations) of projects we think are doing good things but are otherwise not overseeing.

Brian

On 2/8/21 6:34 AM, VIPIN BHARATHAN wrote:
Currently, there are no asks for the sponsor except to stand behind the process of application, they are not expected to engage beyond that point.

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


From: Arun .S.M. <arun.s.m.cse@...>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:05 AM
To: VIPIN BHARATHAN <vip@...>
Cc: tracy.a.kuhrt@... <tracy.a.kuhrt@...>; lehors@... <lehors@...>; SIG-Chairs@... <SIG-Chairs@...>; tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
 
It could be because I don't know about it much further.
Is the sponsor of the project held accountable with additional responsibility?

For example, does it become the sponsor's responsibility to ensure the project follows Hyperledger's guidelines, guide through for a couple of months for best practices etc?
If this is the case then let's discuss how these can be delegated off from the sponsor's shoulder to anybody else in the community.

Regards,
Arun


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Managing Director for Blockchain, Healthcare and Identity
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


Arnaud Le Hors
 

As things stand, the role of sponsors is defined with:

"The role of the sponsor is to officially endorse the proposed lab, indicating in doing so that they believe the proposal is worthy of being given a space among the hyperledger labs. Sponsors may also serve as mentors to the project but how much sponsors are involved in the lab beyond its launch is up to them."

See https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/TSC/2019+02+14+TSC+Minutes
"Informal decision: no objections so we accept the definition as is."
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "bbehlendorf@..." <bbehlendorf@...>
Date:        02/08/2021 09:34 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
Sent by:        tsc@...



Brian,

I agree that governance should be imposed. DCOs are enforced by the rules setup inside the labs for example.

Sponsors do not do any of the other tasks than "sponsor" the projects, basically a review of the proposal, Lab Stewards do that as well.

In fact we have been having discussions about "processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly" etc. for all projects, not just the labs. These efforts can be extended to labs as well.
Let us be very clear about what the Sponsors actually do (or don't do) before we say we require them.

Thanks

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



From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf via lists.hyperledger.org <bbehlendorf=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 3:05 PM
To:
tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects

 
There are some basic things we need the developers involved with each effort within Labs to do (for example, using DCOs), and some things they should be doing (using processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly; etc). Labs that don't do them create operational, reputational, and potentially legal liability for Hyperledger. That liability is on the shoulders of the TSC and Governing Board, who delegate it down to the Labs stewards.

If the Labs stewards are happy policing for and enforcing the things that must be done, and working with communities on the things that should be done, then great. But the point of Sponsors has always been to fan out those responsibilities and efforts to a larger group who could be trusted to perform those roles. Attaching that limit to other maintainers helped ensure it was people who understood those needs and shoulds (though we could always do a better job documenting them). If there aren't enough volunteers for that work, that quite reasonably sets a limit to the number of projects we should have in Labs. It had very little to do with evaluating the quality of a Labs proposal, except to infer that poor quality proposals might not attract a qualified Sponsor.

The TSC can choose to do away with the Sponsor requirement, but not with the responsibilities for governance. If that's preferred, let's just create a page linking to github repositories (hosted by other organizations) of projects we think are doing good things but are otherwise not overseeing.

Brian

On 2/8/21 6:34 AM, VIPIN BHARATHAN wrote:
Currently, there are no asks for the sponsor except to stand behind the process of application, they are not expected to engage beyond that point.

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



From: Arun .S.M. <arun.s.m.cse@...>
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 9:05 AM
To:
VIPIN BHARATHAN
<vip@...>
Cc:
tracy.a.kuhrt@...<tracy.a.kuhrt@...>; lehors@...<lehors@...>; SIG-Chairs@...<SIG-Chairs@...>; tsc@...<tsc@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects

 
It could be because I don't know about it much further.
Is the sponsor of the project held accountable with additional responsibility?

For example, does it become the sponsor's responsibility to ensure the project follows Hyperledger's guidelines, guide through for a couple of months for best practices etc?
If this is the case then let's discuss how these can be delegated off from the sponsor's shoulder to anybody else in the community.

Regards,
Arun


--
Brian Behlendorf
Managing Director for Blockchain, Healthcare and Identity
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



Arun S M
 

This sounds to me like "I know somebody who the Hyperledger community already knows, that person likes my project so I am proposing it".
I guess the problem Vipin brought up is to make it sound like "I have an idea, let me propose it to Hyperledger labs, if the community likes it then it has potential to become a top level project".
Correct me if I am wrong. This is what I could infer from the SIG members meeting notes.

To simplify the process, we could follow the PR process. The reviewers (stewards or active volunteers) can have direct feedback on necessary parameters.
Brian brought up good points in the earlier thread. The reasons why we cannot simply ignore the concept of a sponsor.

On the point that Vipin brought up - developer pain points, standard process followed etc.
Randomly thinking about these problems, shall we make short videos on explaining them?
Ex: Tell that DCO sign-off is mandatory, show how it looks like and what it means.

Regards,
Arun


On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:26 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
As things stand, the role of sponsors is defined with:

"The role of the sponsor is to officially endorse the proposed lab, indicating in doing so that they believe the proposal is worthy of being given a space among the hyperledger labs. Sponsors may also serve as mentors to the project but how much sponsors are involved in the lab beyond its launch is up to them."

See https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/TSC/2019+02+14+TSC+Minutes
"Informal decision: no objections so we accept the definition as is."
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "bbehlendorf@..." <bbehlendorf@...>
Date:        02/08/2021 09:34 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
Sent by:        tsc@...



Brian,

I agree that governance should be imposed. DCOs are enforced by the rules setup inside the labs for example.

Sponsors do not do any of the other tasks than "sponsor" the projects, basically a review of the proposal, Lab Stewards do that as well.

In fact we have been having discussions about "processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly" etc. for all projects, not just the labs. These efforts can be extended to labs as well.
Let us be very clear about what the Sponsors actually do (or don't do) before we say we require them.

Thanks

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



From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf via lists.hyperledger.org <bbehlendorf=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 3:05 PM
To:
tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects

 
There are some basic things we need the developers involved with each effort within Labs to do (for example, using DCOs), and some things they should be doing (using processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly; etc). Labs that don't do them create operational, reputational, and potentially legal liability for Hyperledger. That liability is on the shoulders of the TSC and Governing Board, who delegate it down to the Labs stewards.

If the Labs stewards are happy policing for and enforcing the things that must be done, and working with communities on the things that should be done, then great. But the point of Sponsors has always been to fan out those responsibilities and efforts to a larger group who could be trusted to perform those roles. Attaching that limit to other maintainers helped ensure it was people who understood those needs and shoulds (though we could always do a better job documenting them). If there aren't enough volunteers for that work, that quite reasonably sets a limit to the number of projects we should have in Labs. It had very little to do with evaluating the quality of a Labs proposal, except to infer that poor quality proposals might not attract a qualified Sponsor.

The TSC can choose to do away with the Sponsor requirement, but not with the responsibilities for governance. If that's preferred, let's just create a page linking to github repositories (hosted by other organizations) of projects we think are doing good things but are otherwise not overseeing.

Brian

On 2/8/21 6:34 AM, VIPIN BHARATHAN wrote:
Currently, there are no asks for the sponsor except to stand behind the process of application, they are not expected to engage beyond that point.

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



From: Arun .S.M. <arun.s.m.cse@...>
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 9:05 AM
To:
VIPIN BHARATHAN
<vip@...>
Cc:
tracy.a.kuhrt@...<tracy.a.kuhrt@...>; lehors@...<lehors@...>; SIG-Chairs@...<SIG-Chairs@...>; tsc@...<tsc@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects

 
It could be because I don't know about it much further.
Is the sponsor of the project held accountable with additional responsibility?

For example, does it become the sponsor's responsibility to ensure the project follows Hyperledger's guidelines, guide through for a couple of months for best practices etc?
If this is the case then let's discuss how these can be delegated off from the sponsor's shoulder to anybody else in the community.

Regards,
Arun


--
Brian Behlendorf
Managing Director for Blockchain, Healthcare and Identity
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Arun SM,

I guess you are referring to Vipin Rathi in your email- 

Labs may become top-level projects like Ursa and Cactus did.
Not all labs want to be top-level projects.

I (Vipin Bharathan) was the sponsor of
inter-carrier-settlements  from telecom-sig for which Vipin Rathi was a maintainer; I had been following the discussion about inter-carrier settlements from the telecom SIG. and I thought it was a worthy project. Inter-carrier settlement was a use-case that was quite active in the UK (independent of the telecom SIG).

nter-carrier-settlements is now archived. 
There was nothing created except for the readme file. Mainly due to the main maintainer being busy with other activity and another one dropping out.

About the licensing issue, I see two projects with no license file, 3 with CC-By-4.0 and of course the one with MIT.
All others (37) have Apache 2.0

Again, to reiterate, the sponsors do not usually engage with the project other than the initial sponsorship.

VipinB 

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


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Arun S M via lists.hyperledger.org <arun.s.m.cse=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:00 PM
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>
Cc: tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
 
This sounds to me like "I know somebody who the Hyperledger community already knows, that person likes my project so I am proposing it".
I guess the problem Vipin brought up is to make it sound like "I have an idea, let me propose it to Hyperledger labs, if the community likes it then it has potential to become a top level project".
Correct me if I am wrong. This is what I could infer from the SIG members meeting notes.

To simplify the process, we could follow the PR process. The reviewers (stewards or active volunteers) can have direct feedback on necessary parameters.
Brian brought up good points in the earlier thread. The reasons why we cannot simply ignore the concept of a sponsor.

On the point that Vipin brought up - developer pain points, standard process followed etc.
Randomly thinking about these problems, shall we make short videos on explaining them?
Ex: Tell that DCO sign-off is mandatory, show how it looks like and what it means.

Regards,
Arun

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:26 AM Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...> wrote:
As things stand, the role of sponsors is defined with:

"The role of the sponsor is to officially endorse the proposed lab, indicating in doing so that they believe the proposal is worthy of being given a space among the hyperledger labs. Sponsors may also serve as mentors to the project but how much sponsors are involved in the lab beyond its launch is up to them."

See https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/TSC/2019+02+14+TSC+Minutes
"Informal decision: no objections so we accept the definition as is."
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM




From:        "VIPIN BHARATHAN" <vip@...>
To:        "tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "bbehlendorf@..." <bbehlendorf@...>
Date:        02/08/2021 09:34 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects
Sent by:        tsc@...



Brian,

I agree that governance should be imposed. DCOs are enforced by the rules setup inside the labs for example.

Sponsors do not do any of the other tasks than "sponsor" the projects, basically a review of the proposal, Lab Stewards do that as well.

In fact we have been having discussions about "processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly" etc. for all projects, not just the labs. These efforts can be extended to labs as well.
Let us be very clear about what the Sponsors actually do (or don't do) before we say we require them.

Thanks

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



From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf via lists.hyperledger.org <bbehlendorf=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 3:05 PM
To:
tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects

 
There are some basic things we need the developers involved with each effort within Labs to do (for example, using DCOs), and some things they should be doing (using processes that encourage contribution; using Git correctly; etc). Labs that don't do them create operational, reputational, and potentially legal liability for Hyperledger. That liability is on the shoulders of the TSC and Governing Board, who delegate it down to the Labs stewards.

If the Labs stewards are happy policing for and enforcing the things that must be done, and working with communities on the things that should be done, then great. But the point of Sponsors has always been to fan out those responsibilities and efforts to a larger group who could be trusted to perform those roles. Attaching that limit to other maintainers helped ensure it was people who understood those needs and shoulds (though we could always do a better job documenting them). If there aren't enough volunteers for that work, that quite reasonably sets a limit to the number of projects we should have in Labs. It had very little to do with evaluating the quality of a Labs proposal, except to infer that poor quality proposals might not attract a qualified Sponsor.

The TSC can choose to do away with the Sponsor requirement, but not with the responsibilities for governance. If that's preferred, let's just create a page linking to github repositories (hosted by other organizations) of projects we think are doing good things but are otherwise not overseeing.

Brian

On 2/8/21 6:34 AM, VIPIN BHARATHAN wrote:
Currently, there are no asks for the sponsor except to stand behind the process of application, they are not expected to engage beyond that point.

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



From: Arun .S.M. <arun.s.m.cse@...>
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 9:05 AM
To:
VIPIN BHARATHAN
<vip@...>
Cc:
tracy.a.kuhrt@...<tracy.a.kuhrt@...>; lehors@...<lehors@...>; SIG-Chairs@...<SIG-Chairs@...>; tsc@...<tsc@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger TSC] SIG Request for Support from Technical Community: Labs and technical documents have been created in isolation so far and don’t tend to connect with projects

 
It could be because I don't know about it much further.
Is the sponsor of the project held accountable with additional responsibility?

For example, does it become the sponsor's responsibility to ensure the project follows Hyperledger's guidelines, guide through for a couple of months for best practices etc?
If this is the case then let's discuss how these can be delegated off from the sponsor's shoulder to anybody else in the community.

Regards,
Arun


--
Brian Behlendorf
Managing Director for Blockchain, Healthcare and Identity
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



David Boswell
 

The inter-carrier-settlements Lab that Vipin Bharathan is referencing is worth looking into more.  My understanding from talking to Vipin Rathi (the Chair of the Telecom SIG) is that group members tried to use the Lab project but they found it cumbersome and they weren't getting support with the questions they had about making use of the Lab repo.  The leads of the Telecom SIG have agreed to present about the group at the next TSC call on Feb 18 and I asked him to share details of his experience trying to use the Lab project.

Thanks,
David



I (Vipin Bharathan) was the sponsor of
inter-carrier-settlements  from telecom-sig for which Vipin Rathi was a maintainer; I had been following the discussion about inter-carrier settlements from the telecom SIG. and I thought it was a worthy project. Inter-carrier settlement was a use-case that was quite active in the UK (independent of the telecom SIG).

nter-carrier-settlements is now archived. 
There was nothing created except for the readme file. Mainly due to the main maintainer being busy with other activity and another one dropping out.