2016 06 16 TSC Minutes

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

June 16, 2016 (7:00am - 8:30am PT)via GoToMeeting

TSC Members

Name Company Present
Emmanuel Viale Accenture Yes
Stan Liberman CME Group Yes
Tamas Blummer Digital Asset Yes
Stefan Teis Deutsche Boerse Group Yes
Pardha Vishnumolakala DTCC Yes
Hart Montgomery Fujitsu Yes
Satoshi Oshima Hitachi Yes
Chris Ferris IBM Yes
Mic Bowman Intel Yes
David Voell J.P. Morgan Yes
Richard G. Brown R3 Yes

Resources:

Agenda

  • Action Item review
  • Virtual Hackathon Update (Dan Middleton)
  • HIP identifier: Proposal to include chaintool project repository in hyperledger/fabric (Greg Haskins)
  • WG Updates

Action Item Review

  • Exit criteria summary (Arnaud Le Hors)

    • Discussion

      • Jeremy Sevareid provided an overview of the table added to page 3 of the exit criteria summary doc, noting a preference that the Project should have a definition of “done.”

      • MD:  If this helps add context, “done” is usually handled in most of our projects in release management. Incubation is normally a measure of whether there are people actually working on the project and following the rules. Some projects have an incubation exit criteria of “participating in two releases” to ensure there is also something “done” (again, done being determined in the release process)

      • CF:  Maybe a release yardstick for something that we are going to consider being ready for primetime.  But, exit from incubation should not be predicated on if something if “release ready”

      • Hart:  People are worried that outsiders will equate “maturation” with a product that is ready to use; someone might use it before it is ready.

      • Brian B:  These observations are very insightful.  Separate out 2 things – maturity and ongoing health of community (that is this exit criteria) put out a release that represents the community.  As well as ongoing reporting process that should go up to TSC (releases, new contributors, code quality, bugs outstanding, not just metrics, but also narrative).  Being able to respond to security notices and respond timely. Separately, question of code maturity and labeling, would like to see consistent naming protocol (developer preview, alpha, beta, production, etc.)

      • RGB:  this is very helpful.  Does ASF have a document that we could use so we don’t have to reinvent?

        • Brian B:  Yes, here.  Hyperledger Project may want to add release taxonomy.
        • CF:  Fabric team was hoping to cut a release, don’t need to call it anything.  Would like to demonstrate that you can produce a release as a team (established process, etc.)  Do we need to wait until we see release criteria, or can we just release and call alpha?
        • Brian B:  Don’t want to hold up a release for taxonomy… but taxonomy doesn’t take long to do.  Might also be useful when making release to highlight key things (i.e. if performance may be a concern)
        • CF:  Call to action – can people weigh in with comments in the Google doc so we don’t have to wait for a weekly call.
        • ACTION:  Arnaud to take another pass on exit criteria and send to list.
        • ACTION:  Brian to pull together first draft of release taxonomy in parallel to exit criteria

  • Hackathons

    • [June] Recap later in TSC Meeting

    • [July] Review 2 options (week of 7/25)

      • Will distribution options via separate thread.

    • [August] Virtual (http://doodle.com/poll/r4ftyyvshef2rn6z)

    • [September/October] Discuss Amsterdam at ABN AMRO (http://doodle.com/poll/y9h2e497essf9pg9)

      • Lots of interest in area – IBM NL, Holland Fintech Community, Blockchain initiative of the Dutch Government, Amsterdam City and the Tech University of Delft. Good network and lots of blockchain contributors in Amsterdam (incl Ethereum).

  • Sibos, Geneva, September 26-29

    • From the Marketing Committee:  “This is a significant marketing opportunity and as such we are creating a Sibos prep SWAT team consisting of events, marketing, PR and technical participants – looking for several volunteers. Topics for which a strong technical point of view will be required include whether we can have a Hyperledger demo there, and if so, what and how?”
    • If you are interested in participating, please send a note to tbenzies@linuxfoundation.org and gwallace@linuxfoundation.org.

Virtual Hackathon Update (Dan Middleton)

  • On-going updates

  • Mic:  Are the virtual hackathons as effective as F2F?  Is this a model that we can use consistently?

    • Sheehan:  not as effective as F2F, but, if we explore some additional tools (with rooms full of people in different areas and used video conf, it could be).
    • Murali:  More than tools, the fact that we are in office makes it hard to take full part in hackathon (given other distractions)

  • Suggestions for future virtual Hackathons

    • Regional “hubs” be set up to have groups around the world meet F2F in their respective locations to participate.
    • Run a virtual hackathon to include a weekend day such as Thursday thru Saturday vs. Wednesday thru Friday.
    • Lessons learned should be compiled at the closing of the current virtual Hackathon.

HIP identifier: Proposal to include chaintool project repository in hyperledger/fabric (Greg Haskins)

  • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CeUpHt9tHhwuQtBcmXMHBIQJ6XnkmU733zimvuyXkZo/edit

  • Discussion

    • Brian B:  Is this just a contribution to Fabric, or potentially a standalone underneath Hyperledger?

      • Greg:  Came to it with fabric in mind; that said, with some refactoring it could be made more generic (it would take a little work).

    • Mic:  This is great.  I could imagine how this could be generalized – concept of this tool would be useful regardless of underlying protocols.  One one hand, in favor of improving anything, but would like to see more generalized.

    • Greg:  Didn’t paint myself into a corner, this was just the initial place it fit nicely.

    • CF:  Would also like to see more generalized.  Who is willing to collaborate with Greg on this?

      • Mic:  Can do some digging in.  In STL, we have transaction specification file (but it is really documentation).  In this you are taking abstraction, more than specification. What level can we start thinking about standards and interop.

    • CF:  is API based on swagger?

      • Greg:  Not swagger, best described as protobuf (it tunnels through existing Fabric interface).  Merge between protobufs and existing fabric API.

    • Proposal to include chaintool project repository in hyperledger/fabric

      • VOTE:  Approved unanimously.  (Note: Emmanuel and Richard had dropped from the call by this time)
      • The TSC expressed interest to eventually rework this to function as a TLP.

Action Items

  • ACTION:  Arnaud to take another pass on exit criteria and send to list.
  • ACTION:  Brian to pull together first draft of release taxonomy in parallel to exit criteria
  • ACTION:  Todd to finalize plan proposal for next several Hackathons:  July (west coast), August (virtual), September/October (EU) and distribute to list.

Recording