[ClusterLabs Developers] OCF under the Linux Foundation?

[Digimer]

My take at this point is this;

We're a small group, all things considered, and we're all working fairly
well together at this time. We've all got our particular focus and, so
far as I have seen (and I admit to not seeing a whole lot), coordinating
between projects is going fine.

So my question is;

The overhead of a more official organization, charter, etc comes at a
time cost. What do we get out of it? If the benefits outweigh the time
costs, sure. Otherwise, I think we're fine staying under the Clusterlabs
umbrella for the time being.

Again, I know my view of HA is hardly complete, so this is just my take
on it.

digimer

On 15/08/16 12:34 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> I got a response from the Linux Foundation regarding the OCF name. They
> are willing to host a working group if we want a neutral home for it. He
> didn't explicitly address the question, but I believe the LF would have
> no objections to ClusterLabs taking over the OCF name if we don't want
> to go that route.
> 
> I've attached the sample charter he mentioned in case anyone wants to
> see it. We wouldn't have to set up identically but it's a reference point.
> 
> I think the naming conflicts he mentions are not serious, because (1)
> our usage predates either of those, and (2) there are even more existing
> computer-related uses of the OCF acronym (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCF ... Open Computing Facility,
> OpenBSD/FreeBSD Cryptographic Framework, OpenCard Framework, Original
> Composite Font).
> 
> How does everyone feel about this? Should we host the OCF standards
> under the Linux Foundation, for greater reach and authority, and clear
> neutrality? Or should we bring it under ClusterLabs, to keep everything
> as simple as possible (and perhaps emphasize support for OSes beyond Linux)?
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: Open Cluster Framework
> Date: 	Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:12:46 -0400
> From: 	Michael Dolan <mdolan at linuxfoundation.org>
> To: 	kgaillot at redhat.com
> CC: 	Mike Woster <mwoster at linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ken, is this something you would prefer to have at the LF? We could
> setup a lightweight governance model and let the community drive all the
> decisions under a working group model under the LF. We just announced a
> similar structure for Open vSwitch and would be amenable to hosting this
> similarly. I'm pasting the governance documents here so you can see what
> that looked like. They didn't want any membership levels or fees so it's
> just a technical collaboration effort and very lightweight. However
> giving it a home at the LF allowed them to neutralize any arguments the
> project was under the control of any one company. They assigned the
> domain and trademark rights to the LF to make it neutral.
> 
> I will point out there are a few "OCF" standards out there now that are
> already in naming conflict. First there was the "Open Container Format"
> or "OCF Certified" by the Open Container Initiative we host. They
> already filed for a registered trademark. They standardized the Docker
> container format for broader industry use.
> 
> The other is the Open Connectivity Foundation which is a standards body.
> That one is not directly affiliated with the LF, but we host the
> IoTivity open source project they sponsor so we're aware of their
> activities. They have an OCF brand I believe they were planning to use
> for IoT devices that implement their specification standard.
> 
> I'd be happy to jump on a call if it would be easier to discuss live.
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Mike Dolan
> VP of Strategic Programs
> The Linux Foundation
> Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
> mdolan at linuxfoundation.org <mailto:mdolan at linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
> 


-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?