2016 04 14 TSC Minutes

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

April 14, 2016 (7:00am - 8:30am PT) via GoToMeeting

TSC Members

Emmanuel Viale

Accenture

Yes

Stan Liberman

CME Group

Yes

Tamas Blummer

DAH

Yes

Stefan Teis

Deutsche Boerse Group

Yes

Pardha Vishnumolakala

DTCC

Yes

Hart Montgomery

Fujitsu

Yes

Satoshi Oshima

Hitachi

Chris Ferris

IBM

Yes

Mic Bowman

Intel

Yes

David Voell

J.P. Morgan

Yes

Richard G. Brown

R3

Yes

Resources:

Agenda

Action Item Review

  • ChristopherA and Mic to complete the readme for the merged code proposal that was approved

    • Draft complete, will send to TSC list

  • Chris Ferris to move Project Lifecycle on wiki (no longer under proposals)

    • Arnaud completed this.

    • ChristopherA suggested additional stages in project lifecycle, doesn’t understand how decisions are made in terms of lifecycle doc is created.

      • CF:  The doc was approved last week by TSC.  There were weeks of open discussion. TSC will define and describe the exit criteria.  We don’t need to address that in lifecycle stages. The process of going from incubation to mature is the same.  If you are saying the bar to graduate to mature needs to be high, that is fine. But, we don’t need all these fine grain levels.
      • Mic:  is concern about labels or the criteria to advance stage to stage?
      • ChristopherA:  Both. It communicates things to community on where intent is.  There are potentially multiple things being incubated. Goal of choosing one for single code base.  When is incubation ready for serious review?
      • CF:  From minutes of TSC – one point is agreed to determine exactly what exit criteria is.  We can add in some details as a function of the exit criteria.
      • MikeD:  All incubation projects are incubated for evaluation to promotion. Ideally if there are overlapping incubation projects you want them to work together to harmonize on a plan they build together.
      • PD:  This is an open source project.  There were weeks of discussion and calls to participate.  This is an open community. Participate during the process.  Everyone is welcome to comment.

  • Chris Ferris to move Project Proposal on wiki (no longer under proposals)

    • Arnaud completed this.

  • Dave to finalize wording of whitepaper to get in from of Board to review and opine on.

    • DV:  Plan to publish draft next wednesday and highlight the section talking about permissioned vs. non-permissioned use cases, want to make sure Board is happy with how this is described.

  • Dave to update minutes for whitepaper WG

    • Done.

  • ChristopherA to canvass everyone that expressed interest in Identity subgroup, determine if they prefer a list created or just using slack.

    • First meeting on why people are interested in topic and what we are trying to do.  However, this may end up folding into one of the other WGs.
    • Initial Hyperledger Identity WG Meeting Fri, Apr 15, 11:00 am PT | 1 hr San Francisco (Pacific Daylight Time, GMT-07:00)
    • Agenda for the first call is to introduce ourselves, focus on what can be a deliverable, and make a decision on how to collaborate asynchronously (slack, email list, etc.)

  • Todd to create Doodle poll for Tooling F2F

  • Todd to create Doodle poll for Technical F2F

    • Consensus that a call will be better than a F2F
    • ACTION:  Steve, Chris, Todd to sort out and communicate timing

  • A question was raised if there are more than one very strong proposal for more than 1 hyperledger.  Just like other flavors of Linux… do you consider two different fabrics? …or is only one fabric accepted.

    • CF (speaking as self, not on behalf of IBM or TSC):  We as a community has to decide. This is up to TSC ultimately, with voices from the Community.  Would like to see this group come out with A thing. Focusing on very lowest layer, the core. Not on building out specific framework for banking, or supply chain, etc.  From that core, there can be multiple flavors/platforms that may compete or not. Others think there will be many blockchains, and that likely is true. However, at core there don’t necessarily need to be multiple identity manager, databases, etc.  Hopefully there will be a framework for pluggable consensus. Don’t necessarily need multiple approaches for smart contracts… but likely different languages of it. Assemble these core pieces that we strive to harden (like Linux kernel), but leaves room for marketplace and ecosystem to grow from this kernel.  Hope that as we consider proposals and approve them…. How do we take all the great ideas from the incubation proposal, we come out with something that we have all collaborated on that address the set of use cases and requirements.

HIP Presentation (Patrick Holmes)

  • Patrick Holmes walked through proposal.

  • Proposing that this moves into incubation.

  • Discussion

    • Q:  Would first step be how to integrate intel platform with OBC or other code bases?  How does this interface with other things we have?

      • Patrick – not necessarily.  Would be a mistake to rush to integrate everything… could end up with a frankenstein.  We should first understand the different approaches, pros/cons. Continue developing requirements, architecture, whitepaper, etc.
      • Murali – what about discussion around creating one common fabric?
      • Mic – OBC starts from a permissioned PBFT based consensus model.  Move towards others usages. However, Intel starts from open permissionless model and moves to a permissioned space.  At worse… these two proposals will help us guide on what the potential design space. It will highlight the fundamental differences because it identifies potential opportunities to hone in on.  I second Chris on ideal of single set of building blocks. However, the process of getting there (a plurality of approaches) allows us to review many options. Personally, I don’t think there needs to be one identity service.  This gives us opportunity to do some exploration.

    • CF:  These environments can inform one another – and I hope they do.  But, how does this happen? How should TSC set things up so that we are encouraging this.  How do we take these forward? In parallel?

      • ChristopherA:  Looking forward to doing what you are talking about.  Hoping for a few more incubations. Very happy with Sawtooth Lake proposal.
      • CF:  Agree.  But, how do we make this happen?  Possibly look at next hackathon and do musical chairs… and have OBC hacking on Sawtooth Lake and vice versa.  Collectively, we need to figure out how we turn this into something that is collaborative. As opposed to a bake-off.
      • Ram:  having diverse set of solutions is a very good thing for the long term success.  How do we evolve to more unified framework? What are pros/cons about different approaches.
      • DV:  See multiple blockchain fabrics being proposed under this umbrella.  Do we see every proposal coming in? …or what is criteria of who comes in?  If attention gets spread too thin, do we risk not making enough progress on anything.  …or, do we just see which gets largest development community and moves forward fastest?
      • Mic: do we put the filter on projects coming into incubation?  Or do we work hard on exit criteria?
      • Murali:  Aim for a common fabric, like chris said.  
      • ChristopherA:  this is root of why questions around initial incubation.  Some were concerned about there being a base fabric. Now it sounds like we want a single fabric.  Whether or not through lifecycle or not, it seems like there are some missing stages.
      • Sharon:  agree that we need a common fabric.  Believe strongly that we need to bring in best pieces.  There is a lot of innovation in the industry. Bring together the best of the best.  But, let’s also get the requirements down.
      • Murali: Maybe Intel proposing this is that opportunity?  
      • Hart: big fan of modular architecture, plug n play, and extensibility.  Just want to deal with potential fragmentation.
      • Murali: can volunteer to understand different architectures of the different fabrics.
      • Mic: one thing that is starting to happen is that different approaches are leading to some nice generalizations.  Ultimate goals is to identify those pieces. Also useful for us to encourage a couple different viewpoints to understand spectrum of what those building blocks need to be.
      • CF:  our job is to figure out how to encourage that output.  Let’s pull together group on exit criteria. Let’s also discuss on slack different ideas on how to work to encourage cross-team collaboration.
      • Mic:  don’t see incubation projects being bound to how we get to end.

    • VOTE:  9 of 10 yes.  Approved. (Emmanuel no longer on call at time of vote).

    • ACTION:  Patrick to setup Sawtooth Lake repo.

    • ACTION:  Chris to start discussion on exit criteria

Updates

  • Meetings every monday from 8-9am PT (details announced on every channel)

  • No meeting this week.

  • Agenda for Monday

    • Primrose from Accenture run through counterfeit drugs case
    • Top down user stories (but, also bottom up)
    • Outline for requirements

  • Architecture WG (Ram Jagadeesan)

    • Meet Friday at 10am PT (sent WebEx to all interested, and slack/lists)
    • Initial meeting to go through framework in terms of what comms channels, tools needed, how frequently to meet.  Also get people’s input on workplaces. Wait on requirements WG? …or plunge ahead with well known architectural choices.
  • Whitepaper WG (Dave Voell)
  • Minutes posted.
  • Met yesterday.  Meeting weekly on Wednesdays 1pm ET
  • Reviewed wiki page structure, going over minutes
  • Discussed process that we would like people to follow for soliciting whitepaper feedback
  • Every two weeks we’ll generate a PDF from google docs draft and putting on wiki
  • Also, there will be a form that we ask people to provide feedback to fill in their input.  This will be emailed to WG. Will review and incorporate
  • Going through revisions that have come in. Talked about process

  • Noted that it will take some time in order to get everyone a chance to provide suggestions.

  • Identity WG (Christopher Allen)
  • Immediately after Architecture meeting is Identity WG.
  • A lot of issues in identity area.  May or may not fit neatly into requirements or architecture.  Want to have a further discussion around token hardware, privacy issues, selective disclosure, etc.  Very specific to number of use cases, but maybe not to specific architecture requirements.

  • Decide then if we want to formally make this a WG and have meetings, or have this as a subgroup of a different WG.

  • CI WG (Chris Ferris)

    • ACTION:  Schedule LF tooling discussion.

Actions:

  • Schedule LF Tooling meeting (Todd)
  • Update on Technical F2F dates/venues (Todd)
  • Dave to finalize wording of whitepaper to get in from of Board to review
  • Patrick to setup Sawtooth Lake repo.
  • Chris to start discussion on exit criteria

Recording