Open Inquiry on BOINC's Technical Collaboration, Architectural Evolution, and Community Governance
boinc_projects
Dear BOINC Team,
I am a long-time enthusiast of BOINC and an observer of open-source projects., I deeply resonate with its scientific vision. Over the years, I have observed several structural challenges and would like to explore potential pathways for evolution through the following questions:
I. Technical Collaboration and Ecosystem BuildingOpen-Source Collaboration Potential
I am aware that organizations like the Ethereum Foundation support open-source developers through programs such as the Ethereum Protocol Fellowship (EPF) (e.g.,https://blog.ethereum.org/2025/04/10/epf-6). Is BOINC considering partnerships with similar technical foundations to attract external developers to address core architectural challenges, such as task scheduling algorithm optimization?
Cross-Project Knowledge Transfer
Recent innovations in distributed systems, such as IPFS's P2P content addressing and Apache Mesos's resource scheduling, have emerged. Has the team systematically evaluated the applicability of these technologies to BOINC? For instance, has there been testing of the Libp2p protocol as a replacement for the current centralized task distribution?
II. Architectural Evolution and Pain Point Resolution
Decentralized Task Distribution
The 2021 server outage highlighted single-point-of-failure risks. Is the team planning a hybrid architecture (e.g., regional autonomous clusters + global coordinators) to enhance system resilience while maintaining scientific data control?
Hardware-Capability-Aware Scheduling
Current task allocation does not fully account for hardware heterogeneity (e.g., GPU nodes often receive CPU-intensive tasks). Are there plans to introduce a dynamic hardware profiling system for precise task-hardware matching?
Microtask Engine Feasibility
Mobile device idle time is highly fragmented (averaging 18 minutes per session), yet BOINC’s minimum task unit is 1 hour. Has the team assessed restructuring the task engine to harness edge device compute power?
III. Governance Transparency and Community Empowerment
Technical Roadmap Visibility
Many successful open-source projects (e.g., Linux kernel, Kubernetes) publish technical whitepapers to articulate their vision. Does BOINC plan to release a 5-year architectural evolution roadmap to attract targeted developer contributions?
Modular Collaboration Mechanisms
Third-party improvements (e.g., energy efficiency modules by German teams) often face challenges in merging with the main branch. Is the team considering a plugin architecture to allow community extensions without modifying core code?
Strategies to Attract Young Developers
Only 12% of BOINC contributors are under 25 (2025 data). Are there plans for mentorship programs or hackathons to lower the entry barrier for new contributors?
IV. Resource Expansion and Sustainability
Enterprise-Grade Feature Gaps
Enterprise data centers possess vast idle compute resources, but BOINC lacks compliance frameworks (e.g., resource usage auditing, SLA guarantees). Is there a plan to develop enterprise-friendly versions to expand compute sources?
Energy Efficiency Tooling Shortcomings
Volunteers often withdraw due to high electricity costs. Is the team considering integrating smart power management modules to dynamically adjust compute intensity based on energy pricing?
V. Data Privacy and Ethical Challenges
Barriers to Medical Research Participation
Only 7% of medical projects enable data encryption, deterring institutional participation. Has the team evaluated integrating trusted execution environments (TEE)?
Addressing Geopolitical Compute Imbalances
Asia accounts for 52% of global smart devices but contributes less than 15% of BOINC compute power. Are there regional deployment plans (e.g., localized CDNs, multilingual support initiatives)?
Best Regards,
jack
A BOINC Enthusiast
Cyber Tailor
Vitalii Koshura
Vitalii Koshura
Sent via iPhone
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "boinc_projects" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to boinc_project...@ssl.berkeley.edu.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/ssl.berkeley.edu/d/msgid/boinc_projects/3a14c24b-ac34-42ba-9e7f-7613c9c396dfn%40ssl.berkeley.edu.
Jérôme Cadet
Hi
However I see 2 interesting points that swim on top of that AI
vomit :
- how to attract big organisations (enterprises, universities...)
who have vast unused CPU power : there are certainly security and
technical prerequisites constraints that could be documented and
somehow addressed
- how to take into consideration / make visible energy
consumption : there are boinc params to reduce crunch CPU usage (%
of CPU for multi-threads machines = all machines nowadays + % of
CPU usage which is an unloved and ineffective parameter in my
views) but I think they don't show any clear link with the impact
on energy usage, and it's very true that many people stop
crunching because of energy cost, but maybe would agree to keep a
reasonable crunch % if they could clearly see the impact of their
parameters
Obviously the 2nd point impacts the first.
J.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "boinc_projects" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to boinc_project...@ssl.berkeley.edu.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/ssl.berkeley.edu/d/msgid/boinc_projects/f8e00e91-1c4e-440f-ae35-0e1c66f3d44bn%40ssl.berkeley.edu.