Hyperledger is committed to creating a safe and welcoming community for all. For more information please visit our Code of Conduct: Hyperledger Code of Conduct

Announcements

  • Community Calendar Re-org (Huseby)
    • STEP ZERO: 
      • If you are a maintainer of a project or a chairperson/vice-chairperson of a SIG/WG...
      • Please email dhuseby@linuxfoundation.org ASAP
        • SUBJECT: <Project/WG/SIG Name> Mod me
        • Please email me from the account you use for lists.hyperledger.org OR include that email address in the body of the email.
      • The following groups do not have a moderator volunteer:
        • Avalon
        • Caliper
        • Cello
        • Composer
        • Explorer
        • Fabric
        • Iroha
        • Performance and Scalability WG
        • Quilt
        • Sawtooth
        • Smart Contracts WG
      • The following groups have HL staff moderators but should have a community moderator volunteer:
        • Grid
        • Public Sector SIG
        • Social Impact SIG
        • Supply Chain SIG
        • Telecom SIG
    • STEP ONE:
    • STEP TWO:
    • STEP THREE:

Quarterly reports

Upcoming reports

Decisions

  1. Working Group Task Force proposals:
    1. WGs transition to TSIGs
    2. WGs shall be dropped
    3. Counter proposal: WGs' purpose set to information exchange rather than production of deliverables

Discussions

  1. TSC Election voters selection
    1. Last election process: git commit crawler from Tracy, nominations from SIGs and WGs, and self-nominations by Google form.
  2. Besu: ready for active status?

Outstanding Decisions

Title
No content found.


  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. Gari Singh

    Arnaud J Le Hors  For the discussion items, which items will we actually "vote" on?  I assume the WG item?  And is the vote at this point to simply keep the WG name and state that WG's don't have to provide deliverables?  I saw the discussion about stating Was do not / cannot provide deliverables, but if we are going to vote on something, it would be good to have an explicit (list of) items to vote on / choose from.

    I also REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hope we can get to the Besu discussion.  Not so much because of Besu, but to actually discuss this whole project status topic.

  2. Arnaud J Le Hors

    I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY expect to get to the Besu discussion. (wink)

    Seriously, I don't expect us to spend much time on the other agenda items. I do have to point out that we've already had plenty of discussion on the meaning of Active status and I sure hope we don't have to walk down again old beaten paths.

    In response to your request for greater clarity on what I expect us to vote on I have now separated the agenda items into a decisions section and a discussion section. The downside is that it may be read as implying more than what's intended. Indeed I don't want to preclude discussion from happening on the decision items, and don't want to preclude the possibility of making decisions on discussion items.

    1. Dan Middleton

      Yeah in my experience we often have to judge when we are ready to vote based on the discussion.