OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [cti] Status of CTI OASIS Open Repositories


Trey, John, Mark-

Just to be clear, which of the following are you talking about?

1. an organization for the TC's chartered work, to be used instead of https://github.com/oasis-tcs
2. an organization for open source code related to the TC's chartered work, but not subject to the normal TC IPR policies, to be used instead of https://github.com/oasis-open/ 
3. both (though I believe that the two would likely need to be kept separate to comply with OASIS policies)

Specifically regarding #2, the strongest argument I've heard is that it would help keep the CTI open source repos separate from other TC's, even though this can easily be done by searching for "cti-" [1]. From a user standpoint, nearly all interaction with GitHub is done on a per-repository basis, not per-organization. You can't watch, star, or fork an organization, nor I have I seen any way to automatically follow new repos that get created in an organization. The only exception is the "dashboard" view (https://github.com/orgs/<ORGNAME>/dashboard), which is only available to members of the organization. For Open Repositories, under current policies only the maintainers become members of the organization. I personally never use the dashboard view for any organizations I am a member of. The result is that each repository would need to be handled individually, regardless of whether it's in the same organization as repositories sponsored by other TCs.

On the other hand, in my experience maintaining multiple organizations is significantly more work than maintaining multiple teams within the same organization. Since I imagine OASIS staff will be maintaining these organizations, I'd like to make it as easy on them as possible.

The argument for a separate organization for chartered work (option #1) is a bit stronger, particularly since there's nothing in that organization yet, but I still don't really see the benefits.

Greg

[1] https://github.com/oasis-open/?query=cti-


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trey Darley [mailto:trey@kingfisherops.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 2:42 AM
> To: Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
> Cc: Robin Cover <robin@oasis-open.org>; Mark Davidson
> <mdavidson@soltra.com>; Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>;
> Bret Jordan (CS) <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>; cti@lists.oasis-open.org;
> Back, Greg <gback@mitre.org>; Kirillov, Ivan A. <ikirillov@mitre.org>; Ted
> Bedwell (tebedwel) <tebedwel@cisco.com>; Terry MacDonald
> <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
> Subject: Re: [cti] Status of CTI OASIS Open Repositories
> 
> On 05.10.2016 15:51:58, Wunder, John A. wrote:
> > FWIW I agree with Mark. A Github Organization per TC makes more sense
> > to me from an organizational perspective.
> >
> 
> Ditto, I'm in 100% agreement with Mark on this.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> Trey
> ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
> Kingfisher Operations, sprl
> gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4  5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D
> ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
> --
> "For all resources, whatever it is, you need more." --RFC 1925


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]