2017 07 27 TSC Meeting

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

dummyfile.txt

July 27, 2017 (7:00am - 8:00am PT) via GoToMeeting

TSC Members

*quorum not reached*

Resources:

• Rocket.Chat:  chat.hyperledger.org (you can use your LFID to login)
• Github:  www.github.com/hyperledger
• Wiki:  https://lf-hyperledger.atlassian.net
• Public lists:  lists.hyperledger.org
• Information on the TSC Members can be found at https://www.hyperledger.org/about/tsc
• Meetings:  wiki.hyperledger.org/community/calendar-public-meetings

Hackfest Planning

• US:  9/21 & 9/22 in Chicago [TENTATIVE -- to be confirmed]
• Europe:  http://doodle.com/poll/39za7hz3i98k8esb

TSC Annual Election

• FYI -- Process & Timeline
• Note that the following was approved via email vote for inclusion in the nomination/election process:  "That in addition to collecting the GitHub/Gerrit committer data for the preceding 12 months and the list of project Maintainers for each repository, that we also include the list of WG Chairs and collect from each a list of individual "WG Contributors." There should also be a dispute resolution process where an individual who believes they should be included (but was not) can appeal to the WG Chair and Hyperledger Technical Advocate(s) with the final determination left to Hyperledger staff."
• WG leads to send names/emails directly to Dave (dhuseby@linuxfoundation.org) and Todd (tbenzies@linuxfoundation.org)

PSWG Charter

• Mark Wagner provided an overview of the PSWG Charter draft
• Any discussion around test suites and benchmarking -- should the PSWG look at these?  Should there be multiple or one?
• A few people have sent these over on email list and have discussed the pros/cons.  Want the PSWG to identify a few different use cases that have different performance and scalability attributes that get evaluated.  So, it may be premature to already go with a test suite until we know what we want the test suite to do… but, also don’t want to hold up a test suite.
• What kind of framework will be used to have a level playing field for different DLTs… or the same DLT running different applications or use cases.
• Issue of having a standing testnet to test against a performance and scale perspective would potentially yield unfavorable results because if you are going to deploy for IoT in the permissioned context, it might be configured very different from transferring assets from one bank to the next.  A standing test environment may not be the right thing to test against -- need to look at how deployed/configured.
• Point of WG is the resolve these types of questions.  Also, relationship between project proposal in performance space vs. charter of WG.  For this WG to be relevant and meaningful, it should have a close relationship between what type of projects come through for performance, and those that don’t.  Provide feedback to platform devs and vice versa. Helping evaluate proposals.
• ACTION:  Mark to factor in this discussion and other feedback, do another pass, and then bring the Charter proposal back to the TSC list for final review and vote (either via email or on the next TSC call).