2017 04 06 TSC Meeting

Owned by Ry Jones
Oct 01, 2019
3 min read

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

dummyfile.txt

April 6, 2017 (7:00am - 8:00am PT) via GoToMeeting

TSC Members

Arnaud Le Hors

Yes

Binh Nguyen


Christopher Ferris

Yes

Dan Middleton

Yes

Greg Haskins


Hart Montgomery

Yes

Mic Bowman

Yes

Murali Krishna Katipalli

Yes

Richard Brown

Yes

Sheehan Anderson


Tamas Blummer

Yes


Resources:


Hackfest Planning


Internship Program

  • Working with the Mentors to finalize who the 6 interns will be by Friday, April 14th.


Q&A on GSL (Tamas Blummer)

  • Provided a recap from the GSL discussion and walked through Q&A.


Hyperledger Burrow proposal / thread (Benjamin Bollen & Silas Davis)

  • Benjamin provided an overview of Burrow
  • Recording (12:36 - 52:35)
  • Discussion
    • Any work being done with rootstock?
      • No, have not not explicitly collaborated with them.
    • What is the relationship between Monax, EEA, and Hyperledger?
      • Monax is a Member of both entities -- hope to help bridge the two Communities.
    • Suggested that it could become a layer or an idea that would bind all the different DLTs under Hyperledger umbrella.  Can you provide more detail about permissioning?
      • What we’ve done specifically with EVM contrary to public Etherum EVM implementation that exists, at every execution step check for permissions of account before executing any steps.  We return additional errors if permissions are not observed. Done explicitly within execution of EVM. General concept is it is important to have certain operations that can be allowed/restricted only by managerial accounts.
      • So in this sense the permissions are 'self-hosted' and can be manipulated from EVM contracts via calls to special addresses. So for example you can have a contract alter permissions.
    • If checking with significant number of actions, have you observed degradation in performance?
      • These checks are natively implemented, no significant overhead on checking these permissions.
    • Does the permissioning layer in Burrow affect who is allowed to publish blocks on network?
      • It extends upwards into application of what a transaction can execute, but also implemented downward into the consensus engine.  Specifically for Tendermint, known validators that sign off cryptographically and for them to bond a state before they can start exercising the voting power, need to have permission to bond that state.
    • Elaborate on Community and maturity of the technology.
      • User base of this open source project are predominantly startups.  Extended on commercial side by public partnerships (i.e. Deloitte and Accenture).  Feel this technology needs to be built in an OSS arena, never aimed to own this technology, but we know it needs to exist.  It is roughly 3 years old with multiple pilot deployments.
    • Is Tendermint collaborating?
      • On a dev level, we work close with them (their codebase is Apache 2.0), we have it as a dependency.  The value comes from the application that runs on it.
      • Tendermint's ABCI interface gives us a fairly nice boundary within Burrow, as a totally ordered stream of transactions and block boundaries.
    • Are you comfortable with Apache 2.0 license and the conversion that was done?
      • Yes.
    • How many contributors?
      • 11 based on Github.
    • Is Monax interested in further collaboration and integration?
      • Yes.
  • VOTE:  Unanimous.  APPROVED.


Top-level project vs. sub-project discussion

  • Continuing discussion via TSC list.


Actions + On-going

  • Hackfest/Hackathon planning (DC, April 24-25 / Beijing, June 17-20)
  • Internship Program update
  • Top-level project vs. sub-project discussion