2019 02 14 TSC Minutes

Revisiting the incoming frameworks guidelines.

https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/tsc/message/1931
Rough Draft - New Project Proposal
- please add your comments on the criteria we should include.
Keep receiving proposals for code bases wanting to join Hyperledger.
The guidelines will help with the screening process in the beginning.
This is designed to differentiate between frameworks, apps, etc.
Any topics or criteria that should be included?
- Is it a multi-stakeholder project? Now that we have labs, that should be where code bases grow to include multiple stakeholders before graduating into a project.
- What will the TSC be considering with new frameworks going forward.
- Multi-stakeholder/diversity aspect is fundamental to a potential new project to be considered to be a project rather than a lab.
- Graduation from a lab to project hinges a lot on multi-stakeholder interest in the project.
- Uniqueness is of less concern because we can use Hyperledger as a place to consolidate similar projects.
  - We do not want to be a dumping ground for failed ICO platforms.
- Default to directing code bases to a lab, except if they are an established project with a diversity of stakeholders.
- Labs don't necessarily provide access to tools and marketing resources making growth a little more difficult.
  - Informal decision: labs should be able to request access to tools as they need it. No customization. Just use what you get in Github.
  - We need a feel that there is a real project going on before a lab graduates to a project. We should minimize the amount of resources invested.
- What criteria do people think are reasonable for skipping labs and straight to a project?
  - Is it coming in as a multi-vendor active project or is a project from scratch?
    - Project from scratch should be a lab first.
    - Multi-vendor, active project should be a project.
    - Projects that have been incubated as part/feature in an existing project and now needs to be split off is a third category of potential project.
  - Is there a template for labs proposals with a checklist?
    - Yes. Is it sufficient? We should review it.

Role of lab sponsors wording

Looking for comments from the community.
Labs require a labs sponsor and we need to make sure that we have a solid set of expectations for a sponsor.
Kelly: Arnaud's definition is consistent with his understanding of a lab sponsor role.
+1 Chris Ferris
Informal decision: no objections so we accept the definition as is.

APAC bootcamp

Set for Hong Kong, March 7-8
Opened up registration and was sold out in less than 24 hours.
- We're trying to expand the number of attendees.
- Still have slots available for session leaders
Slots are filling up with sessions.
Most materials for the bootcamp are being created as reusable materials for future bootcamps.
- Plans to translate the materials for non-English speaking bootcamps.

Contributors Summit

Still in discussions with the events team to find a time and location for it.
Kelly: are we still looking to append this to the members summit in Japan this summer?
- Not currently but was considering a day of unconference at the members' summit for this.
- There's a desire to have them both together to make (international) travel easier for attendees.
- We were looking at having the contributors' summit in Canada.
- Can we still look into having the contributors' summit at a less expensive venue in conjunction with the members' summit.
  - Soramitsu, Hitachi, and NEC may have spaces we can use for the contributors' meeting.

Bootcamps in India and Brazil

Still in discussions with the events team to find a time and location for them.
Brazil is likely to be in the May time frame.

Election of New Chair for Learning Materials Dev WG

Include ask of TSC for projects to send a representative to LMGD group
Sent email to email list about voting
Tabling until next week.

Announcements

Items of discussion

Quarterly updates

Upcoming items

Recordings

Backlog