We need to move this resolution along, if we want to be ready for the next
On May 18, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Mark Gardner wrote:
> I believe one of the strengths of VCL is in its ability to manage
> software license issues and use roles to manage who has access to
> what. Is this something that should be included or should we save that
> for a later and longer description further down the page.
The resolution does not need to list *all* attributes (or call out particular
strengths). It needs to describe the scope of the project. Not overly broad,
not overly narrow. Just right… ;-). You don't need to market yourselves. You've
proven that there's a community around VCL. That's the important part.
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Andy Kurth <andy_ku...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>> I have created a Confluence page which we can use to work out the
>> board resolution:
>> Once we are comfortable with the resolution, one of the PPMC members
>> will propose it on the general incubator list. The areas we need to
>> work on are in bold. We need to define the project description and
>> scope. I wrote this as "dynamically provisioning and brokering remote
>> access to compute resources". Thoughts?
I'm not sure I would not really understand the scope of VCL from that
>> The description is currently "VCL is a management framework for
>> building, dispensing and managing virtual machine images across a set
>> of bare metal machines or systems with an installed virtual machine
>> hypervisor." I don't think this is quite accurate. How about "VCL is
>> a modular cloud computing platform which dynamically provisions and
>> brokers remote access to compute resources."?
I understand that.