I got a response from the Linux Foundation regarding the OCF name. They are willing to host a working group if we want a neutral home for it. He didn't explicitly address the question, but I believe the LF would have no objections to ClusterLabs taking over the OCF name if we don't want to go that route.
I've attached the sample charter he mentioned in case anyone wants to see it. We wouldn't have to set up identically but it's a reference point. I think the naming conflicts he mentions are not serious, because (1) our usage predates either of those, and (2) there are even more existing computer-related uses of the OCF acronym (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCF ... Open Computing Facility, OpenBSD/FreeBSD Cryptographic Framework, OpenCard Framework, Original Composite Font). How does everyone feel about this? Should we host the OCF standards under the Linux Foundation, for greater reach and authority, and clear neutrality? Or should we bring it under ClusterLabs, to keep everything as simple as possible (and perhaps emphasize support for OSes beyond Linux)? -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Open Cluster Framework Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:12:46 -0400 From: Michael Dolan <mdo...@linuxfoundation.org> To: kgail...@redhat.com CC: Mike Woster <mwos...@linuxfoundation.org> Hi Ken, is this something you would prefer to have at the LF? We could setup a lightweight governance model and let the community drive all the decisions under a working group model under the LF. We just announced a similar structure for Open vSwitch and would be amenable to hosting this similarly. I'm pasting the governance documents here so you can see what that looked like. They didn't want any membership levels or fees so it's just a technical collaboration effort and very lightweight. However giving it a home at the LF allowed them to neutralize any arguments the project was under the control of any one company. They assigned the domain and trademark rights to the LF to make it neutral. I will point out there are a few "OCF" standards out there now that are already in naming conflict. First there was the "Open Container Format" or "OCF Certified" by the Open Container Initiative we host. They already filed for a registered trademark. They standardized the Docker container format for broader industry use. The other is the Open Connectivity Foundation which is a standards body. That one is not directly affiliated with the LF, but we host the IoTivity open source project they sponsor so we're aware of their activities. They have an OCF brand I believe they were planning to use for IoT devices that implement their specification standard. I'd be happy to jump on a call if it would be easier to discuss live. Thanks, Mike --- Mike Dolan VP of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan mdo...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:mdo...@linuxfoundation.org> ---
Open vSwitch Charter 2016-04-22.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
