My take at this point is this; We're a small group, all things considered, and we're all working fairly well together at this time. We've all got our particular focus and, so far as I have seen (and I admit to not seeing a whole lot), coordinating between projects is going fine.
So my question is; The overhead of a more official organization, charter, etc comes at a time cost. What do we get out of it? If the benefits outweigh the time costs, sure. Otherwise, I think we're fine staying under the Clusterlabs umbrella for the time being. Again, I know my view of HA is hardly complete, so this is just my take on it. digimer On 15/08/16 12:34 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > 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> > --- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Developers mailing list > Developers@clusterlabs.org > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers > -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers