I'm perfectly happy to transfer the OCF.org domain to Red Hat - or to
I would prefer for the repository for the standards to not be tied to
the existing ClusterLabs source repository. I'm perfectly happy for the
same people to manage it - but I think it's confusing to say "it's part
of Pacemaker". In practice, that might be essentially true, but I think
it dilutes the idea of a standard.
Life got complicated, but the intent of the OCF was to be a set of
standards defining a framework (not so much an organization). Since Red
Had originally declined to participate in the definition effort (but
were asked to), it made sense for it to be separate. I was pleased that
they eventually implemented part of the standard (pre-Pacemaker).
I think a certain minimal level of separation still makes sense.
Otherwise it's just "pacemaker-compatible". That's not a horrible thing,
but it's less than a semi-independent framework specification.
Let me know how I can assist you with whatever you decide.
You could have just gone your own way, but you chose to include me - and
I thank you for that courtesy.
On 10/14/2016 03:21 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> There has been a lot of talk over the years (including on this list 
> and the ClusterLabs mailing lists ) of updating the OCF resource
> agent standard.
> The standard is currently used by at least the Pacemaker and rgmanager
> cluster managers, and the Assimilation monitoring system.
> OCF as an entity faded out long ago, so there is no formal process to
> update the standard. OCF started as a working group of the Free
> Standards Group in 2003, but was already inactive by the time the FSG
> was absorbed into the Linux Foundation in 2007.
> Since this list has had very little traffic in recent years, I would
> like to propose these changes:
> * OCF could now be considered the name of the collection of standards,
> rather than an organization.
> * ClusterLabs  (the hub of the Pacemaker community) could take over
> the role of publishing the OCF standards, with updates taking place
> through pull requests against the ClusterLabs GitHub repository .
> * Anyone still interested in OCF could subscribe to the
> us...@clusterlabs.org and/or develop...@clusterlabs.org lists , and
> this list could be closed to new posts and members.
> I'd like to get feedback from anyone here (especially Alan R. and the
> Assimilation community, and anyone else who uses OCF outside Pacemaker)
> on whether that sounds reasonable, or whether anyone has a better idea.
> Much of this has already happened de-facto, but I'd like to make sure
> there is a community consensus before proceeding with updating the
> standard, and hopefully consolidating the various OCF websites/lists.
>  http://lists.community.tummy.com/pipermail/ocf/2014-October/001413.html
>  http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/
>  http://www.clusterlabs.org/
>  https://github.com/ClusterLabs/OCF-spec
OCF mailing list