> On 17 Oct 2016, at 12:17 PM, Alan Robertson <al...@unix.sh> wrote: > >> 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.
It’s currently registered to me (I just prefer to keep my home address off the internet) I would happily give it (and the cost) up to another party though. Linbit has been a good citizen in that regard for other domains and projects. > > Let me know how I can help. > > -- Alan > > > 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 [1] >>>> and the ClusterLabs mailing lists [2]) 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 [3] (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 [4]. >>>> >>>> * Anyone still interested in OCF could subscribe to the >>>> us...@clusterlabs.org and/or develop...@clusterlabs.org lists [2], 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. >>>> >>>> [1] http://lists.community.tummy.com/pipermail/ocf/2014-October/001413.html >>>> >>>> [2] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/ >>>> >>>> [3] http://www.clusterlabs.org/ >>>> >>>> [4] https://github.com/ClusterLabs/OCF-spec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OCF mailing list >>> OCF@lists.community.tummy.com >>> http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/ocf >> _______________________________________________ >> OCF mailing list >> OCF@lists.community.tummy.com >> http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/ocf > > > _______________________________________________ > OCF mailing list > OCF@lists.community.tummy.com > http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/ocf _______________________________________________ OCF mailing list OCF@lists.community.tummy.com http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/ocf
