On 10/16/2016 08:26 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> 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.

This change has gained momentum over the past couple of years,
especially since a 2015 HA summit in Brno. The ClusterLabs repository is
now seen as an HA community hub, rather than simply the home of Pacemaker.

As an example, the ocf:heartbeat resource agents are now hosted at
ClusterLabs (and will likely be renamed to ocf:clusterlabs in the
future), but they are still fully intended for use with any
OCF-compliant system.

Another example is ClusterLabs' libqb, which was originally written to
share code between Pacemaker and Corosync, but is now used by a growing
list of other projects.

One related to-do item is to revamp the clusterlabs.org website to
clearly indicate that ClusterLabs is an umbrella group, and list the
sub-projects equally. If we can get that done, will that make you more
comfortable with ClusterLabs hosting the standard?

If we do put OCF under ClusterLabs, one of my first goals will be to
consolidate the OCF information available. Currently, there is a
standards.clusterlabs.org alias, which points to OpenCF.github.io, and
there is also www.opencf.org. I'd like to point all those to the same
place (with up-to-date info). But it will stay as its own distinct site,
which I think will help make clear its independence from any particular

It's also worth pointing out that ClusterLabs is an informal community
group, and is not tied to (or hosted by) any one company.

>>>> 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

Reply via email to