> Let me know how I can assist you with whatever you decide.
Since the current ownership of clusterlabs is through
contactprivacy.org, and I haven't kept up with Pacemaker, I'm not in a
position to have an informed opinion.
Let me know how I can help.
On 10/16/2016 05:41 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2016, at 3:07 AM, Alan Robertson <al...@unix.sh> wrote:
>> Hi Ken,
>> I'm perfectly happy to transfer the OCF.org domain to Red Hat - or to
>> you personally.
>> 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”.
> I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. Pacemaker << Cluster Labs
> Cluster Labs is the umbrella under which many in the wider HA community have
> decided to put their projects (much like OpenStack is also a collection or
> independent projects with a common purpose and message).
> The intention is that Pacemaker is just another project and when someone
> writes a better cluster manager it can take Pacemaker’s place in the stack
> without loosing the umbrella.
>> 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.
>> -- Alan
>> 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
> OCF mailing list
OCF mailing list