TSCCall20260113 - hiero-ledger/governance GitHub Wiki

Hiero Technical Steering Committee Meeting

TL;DR: The TSC agreed to stop doing formal “minutes approvals” (relying on the recording + a quick recap unless someone flags an issue), reviewed new GitVote asynchronous-voting guidance, confirmed the roadmap repo proposal passed, and surfaced several follow-ups (HIP-1313 async vote, wiki edit permissions alignment, and mentorship coordination).

Details

Organization: Hiero
Date: Jan 13th 2026
Time: 10:00am ET
Recording: https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/95775743341?password=c07443bf-b0e6-4a68-93f1-5c7ce9bb49ab

TSC Attendees

  • Hendrik Ebbers
  • Stoyan Panayotov
  • Richard Bair
  • Alex Popowycz
  • Michael Kantor
  • Georgi Lazarov (present)

Guests

  • Michael Garber
  • Jessica Gonzalez
  • Joseph Sinclair
  • Roger Barker
  • Sophie Bulloch
  • Diane C Mueller
  • Angelina Ceppaluni

Agenda Items

Guests

As every Hiero meeting the TSC meeting is a public meeting and everybody can attend it.
You can find all the information about the TSC meetings and all other Hiero meetings in our public calender.

Code of Conduct

As in every meeting we start with a short notice of the antitrust policy of Linux Foundation and an introduction of our Code of Conduct.

Meeting Summary

  • Minutes process (previous minutes / “approval”)

    • The group discussed moving away from the prior PR-based “two TSC approvals” workflow for minutes.
    • Consensus: treat AI-generated summaries (with Brandon’s review) as the default record, and only revisit if someone flags an inaccuracy.
    • Improvement suggestion: begin each meeting with a short recap of the prior meeting’s main points and minutes, allowing immediate objections before moving on.

  • Community/member updates & events

    • Hendrik shared upcoming events where Hiero will be present, including LF Decentralized Trust maintainer/developer events in the NYC area and FOSDEM (late January / early February timeframe).
    • Attendees were invited to share other events or community updates; no additional updates were raised.

  • GitVote asynchronous voting guidance

    • Jessica introduced a new Hiero-specific guide for using asynchronous voting (GitVote) and encouraged teams to review and contribute improvements.
    • The group reviewed how votes are cast (thumbs up/down) and noted that anyone can react, but only votes from the called team count for the official result.
    • Hendrik pointed out the transparency benefits for both official decisions and general community sentiment.

  • Reminder: public calls + Discord engagement

    • The TSC reiterated the ask for more participation across community calls (including maintainer meetings) and encouraged wider use of Hiero’s Discord.
    • Hendrik noted ongoing work to surface Discord entry points more prominently in repositories (example: adding Discord info in issue creation flows).

  • HIPs status

    • Michael Garber noted progress on “blocked node discoverability,” now moved into draft, and requested additional reviewers/comments (not yet ready for a TSC vote).
    • The group reviewed how HIP work is tracked and reiterated that early review and community input are welcome prior to formal voting.

  • Roadmap repository proposal (previously presented)

    • The roadmap sub-project proposal previously presented in the prior meeting passed via asynchronous vote.
    • The intent is to improve visibility into what teams are working on and provide a clearer, more transparent roadmap for Hiero initiatives.

  • Roadmap vs HIPs alignment discussion

    • Alex asked how the new roadmap effort will integrate with HIPs to avoid fragmentation and confusion for the community.
    • Richard described the distinction:
      • HIPs are the mechanism for specification changes (discussion, review, and approvals for spec evolution).
      • The roadmap is a lower-friction planning/visibility tool for initiatives/epics, potentially driving the creation of future HIPs and reflecting scheduling/timelines for work (including HIP-related work).
    • Alex raised a follow-up question about informational/process HIPs and ensuring the community has a clear “where to engage” path.

  • HIP-1313 voting follow-up

    • Hendrik noted that HIP-1313 was presented last week, but the vote was not created.
    • Plan: create an asynchronous vote so absent TSC members have time to review and vote before next week’s meeting, and address any questions while the author is available.

  • AOB: governance wiki edit permissions

    • Jessica asked whether to open the governance wiki agendas to anyone vs controlling edits via a write-access group.
    • Based on feedback (including that at least one maintainer lacked access), the group agreed to keep edits restricted but ensure that all maintainers are correctly included in the appropriate “governance write” permissions group.
    • Jessica took an action to align access with maintainer teams so maintainers can update agendas/minutes as intended.

  • AOB: how to organize HCS-related standards/pointers under HIPs

    • Michael Garber raised concerns about introducing a dedicated “HCS” folder and suggested alternatives:
      • use the existing “application standards track” concept (per HIP-1), or
      • create a more general, reusable mechanism similar to Ethereum’s “ERCs” (e.g., a distinct category for standards requests) to avoid proliferating service-specific folders.
    • Michael Kantor noted the goal is primarily a lightweight registry/pointer mechanism and welcomed feedback on the best structure.
    • Next step: Michael Garber and Michael Kantor to collaborate on a concrete proposal for naming/structure and bring it back for decision-making (likely via async vote due to quorum constraints).

  • AOB: broader community needs & mentorships (LFX)

    • Sophie raised concerns that TSC discussions can feel HIP-dominated and that SDK maintainers (e.g., Python SDK) feel detached from HIP implementation planning and support.
    • Sophie also raised urgency around Linux Foundation mentorship timelines and asked how Hiero will participate (developers were seeking mentorship opportunities and looking elsewhere due to perceived lack of Hiero options).
    • Alex suggested creating a dedicated, explicit “community input/escalations/needs” section in the TSC agenda (rather than burying these items in AOB) to ensure consistent visibility and response.
    • Jessica indicated she had reached out to LF mentorship contacts and planned to connect Sophie with Nate Waddington; Diane strongly encouraged prioritizing mentorship participation and suggested inviting Nate to present deadlines/opportunities to maintainers (potentially both TSC and broader community venues).

Key Decisions

  • Minutes handling: Move away from formal PR-based “approval of minutes.” Use AI-generated summaries with lightweight review, rely on the meeting recording as source of truth, and only revisit if inaccuracies are raised. Begin each meeting with a short recap window to surface objections.
  • Governance wiki access: Keep editing restricted (not open to everyone), but ensure all maintainers have the correct write permissions via the governance write/access group.

Prepared by: Brandon Davenport, Dir of Product, Hgraph