oslc-core message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] Re: [oslc-sc] Re: OASIS OSLC Open Project Proposal
- From: "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- To: Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 18:53:06 +0000
Chet,
I added comments
and some additional items for consideration using change tracking in the
attached document. In summary:
1. We would like
to migrate all current CS and WD documents to the OP in order to use a
single repo, process and TSC for managing all OSLC standards track documents.
The team is too small and there are too many documents to handle multiple
processes
2. We would like
to accelerate the process and infrastructure changes for the OP so that
the ongoing technical work can proceed as seamlessly as possible.
3. We would like
to have a single GitHub repo for the OSLC OP, using and renaming the current
oslc-core repo. We will migrate the Domains TC repo to appropriate folders
in the oslc repo.
4. We would like
to keep the current GitHub OSLC organization, open-services.net, eclipse/lyo
and the OSLC OP as separate but linked entities focused on different aspects
of application integration enablement and supporting initiatives and work
products.
5. The only standards
track process thing that is unclear is where the electronic ballots for
OP Project Specification are created and managed.
6. The specification
publishing process needs to be outlined, prototyped and tested.
Jim Amsden, Senior
Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle
Data
919-525-6575
From:
Chet
Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>
To:
Jim
Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Cc:
Carol
Geyer <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>, OSLC Core TC <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>,
OASIS OSLC Domains TC Discussion List <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>,
oslc-sc@lists.oasis-open.org, Scott McGrath <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
Date:
01/17/2019
04:54 PM
Subject:
Re:
[oslc-domains] Re: [oslc-sc] Re: OASIS OSLC Open Project Proposal
Jim, please have a look at the attached
and let me know if this gives everybody what they need to understand what
needs to happen, etc.. If not, let's discuss what else you would like to
see.
Best,
/chet
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 9:15 AM Jim Amsden
<jamsden@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
Chet,
The TCs are looking forward to your roadmap to OASIS OSLC Open Project.
What would be helpful is a short table that highlights the impact on the
current OSLC MS StC and Core and Domains TCs, and their processes, specification
lifecycle governance and work product deliveries.
We would also like to prototype the changes by using the OSLC Core CSPRD04
as our first Open Project Project Specification.
I would like to consider merging the domains and core TCs into a single
OP TSC, and combine our current two meetings into one. This implies merging
both charters into the new Open Project charter.
I'd be happy to meet with you anytime to start working through the details.
Regarding some of the document editing changes Paul requested for the OSLC
Query CSPRD01 specification:
* moving to https
* updated IPR Policy statement
* links to open-services.net2.0 specifications are all broken
* OASIS headings text colors and logo in spec.css
* <hr> tag in the HTML, just before each major section
Would it be possible for Paul to be and adjunct member of the OP TSC and
make these edits directly? That could speed things up and make it easier
for everyone. Alternatively, it would be helpful if these were raised as
GitHub issues, labeled as "formatting" so that its easier to
track them instead of using emails that can get lost.
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575
From: Chet
Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>
To: Jim
Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Carol
Geyer <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>,
OSLC Core TC <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>,
OASIS OSLC Domains TC Discussion List <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>,
oslc-sc@lists.oasis-open.org,
Scott McGrath <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
Date: 01/14/2019
05:44 PM
Subject: [oslc-domains]
Re: [oslc-sc] Re: OASIS OSLC Open Project Proposal
Sent by: <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi Jim,
Here are the answers to your questions. I am working on a timeline, a package
of draft motions, and an outline of the actions everybody will need to
take. Maybe later this week it would be good to get the right group of
people together to review all that and make sure it lines up with your
expectations. Have a look and these and then let me know.
> 1. Clarification: OASIS waiver of Project Backer fees for OSLC Open
Project: OASIS will waive the Backer fees for the organizations that
are represented on the current OSLC MS StC for the foreseeable future,
provided that those companies retain their OASIS Foundational Sponsor,
Sponsor, or Contributor memberships. Organizations not represented on the
current OSLC MS StC, including OSLC Member Section organizations that are
not currently on the StC, will be able to become OSLC Project Backers and
members of the PGB by paying the annual fees listed above.
Yes, that is correct.
> 2. Clarification: For practical and technical reasons, I propose that
PROMCODE continue on its current standards track, maintaining its current
TC and not be part of the OASIS OSLC Open Project.
This is really a decision for the members of the PROMCODE TC to make. Since
they are a part of the Member Section with representation on the MS (though
not represented on the StC) and an active OSLC TC, it wouldn't be right
to close the door on them. We recommend that a representative have a discussion
with them about whether they want to go through all the work to close their
TC and move the work to the OP. I'm happy to help with that. I suspect
they'll prefer to carry on as a TC.
> 3. Issue: All PGB members must sign the CLA regardless of whether
or they contribute content. This could create a legal hurdle for PGB members
who wish to participate in project governance but may be unable to sign
the CLA. Each of the current StC members will need to research this issue
within their own organization to see if this is an issue for them.
Yes, members will certainly want to consult with their counsel. Our rules
are crafted this way on the assumption that projects may want, at some
point, to bring some of their work to Project Specification status (the
OP equivalent of a CS). For work that gets to that level, users will
expect companies on the body running the project not to make legal problems
for them if they implement it. The CLA for PGB members provides that
assurance to users and implementers of the Open Project's work.
Parties who want to stay involved but not give a license beyond the simple
FOSS for their own contributions *can* do so. They just won't have the
benefit of putting their name on the marquee or voting on standards submissions.
Also, anyone who is in the TC now has an equal or great licensing commitment
today than they take on as a PGB member under the OP (with the sole exception
that their NEW increments of contribution after the transition also will
be usable by all freely in derivations or forks). We'd be surprised if
that seems MORE onerous to any of the current players. We are always ready
to chat with members and their counsel if it will help.
Also, you can somewhat mitigate and smooth a transition by working, within
the proponents' group, to find the new FOSS license variant under which
most would be most comfortable contributing.
> For current OSLC TC members, what IP agreements already exist for
OASIS specification contribution, and how does this relate to the CLA?
In a TC, members have several IPR commitments, under our rules and the
signed Membership Agreement, including (1) an ongoing copyright license
from everything sent in, and (2) a patent license promise on all final
specs, based on the mode (like "RF on Limited Terms") and the
contingency that it only becomes enforceable after certain periods and
votes occur.
In an OP, there are 3 levels: (1) Anyone can submit bug reports and non-substantive
edits. (2) Contributors of material, technical work must sign a CLA,
and thus grant the designated FOSS license rights in their contributions.
(These might or might not include patent protection, depending on the license
chosen.) and (3) PGB members also promise to give a patent non-assert
very similar to our TC non-assert mode, with similar conditions and "outs"
through their signing of the entity CLA.
In both places, the obligation is triggered by showing up and signing stuff.
But they're separate, so existing TC members will need to RE-sign up to
trigger their promises as to any future new material.
> Is the CLA a separate agreement covering the Open Project artifacts,
and any standards track documents that arise from the Open Project still
have to adhere to the current OASIS standards track IP rules?/
Yes, the CLA is a separate agreement covering OP contributions. The sponsors
pick the license applicable to the project as part of the charter. When
Open Project work goes into the standards track workflow (by being approved
as a Project Specification), that work will be covered by the OP Process
rules and the CLA; they will not have to do anything special to comply
with TC IPR mode as well.
Let us know if this answers everything. Always happy to get on a call to
discuss further.
Best regards,
/chet
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:15 AM Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
Carol,
I think we are getting close to being ready to commit to OSLC becoming
an OASIS Open Project. We have a few remaining clarifications/questions/issues
to resolve. I hope these are not blockers, but it would be nice to get
some clarification/resolution as soon as possible.
1. Clarification: OASIS waiver of Project Backer fees for OSLC Open Project:
OASIS will waive the Backer fees for the organizations that are represented
on the current OSLC MS StC for the foreseeable future, provided that those
companies retain their OASIS Foundational Sponsor, Sponsor, or Contributor
memberships. Organizations not represented on the current OSLC MS StC,
including OSLC Member Section organizations that are not currently on the
StC, will be able to become OSLC Project Backers and members of the PGB
by paying the annual fees listed above.
2. Clarification: For practical and technical reasons, I propose that PROMCODE
continue on its current standards track, maintaining its current TC and
not be part of the OASIS OSLC Open Project.
3. Issue: All PGB members must sign the CLA regardless of whether or they
they contribute content. This could create a legal hurdle for PGB members
who wish to participate in project governance but may be unable to sign
the CLA. Each of the current StC members will need to research this issue
within their own organization to see if this is an issue for them.
For current OSLC TC members, what IP agreements already exist for OASIS
specification contribution, and how does this relate to the CLA? Is the
CLA a separate agreement covering the Open Project artifacts, and any standards
track documents that arise from the Open Project still have to adhere to
the current OASIS standards track IP rules?
4. Issue: We need to outline the process for publishing Open Project artifacts
as OASIS standards track documents.
Our preferred approach would be to have the HTML source documents in the
Git repo be the normative documents (since they are version managed), and
to use ReSpec to provide an HTML representation of these documents for
consumption. We would control the document file names and URL references
in the Git repo, avoiding the creation of broken links in the publish step.
We would also like to maintain the specification track document lifecycles
in the Git repo, using appropriate tags to designate the status of documents.
Again, this links document status with preserved versions in the repo change
history.
Could publishing the standards track documents with specific naming conventions,
formats and/or MIME types in docs.oasis-open.orgbe
part of the Open Project core services provided by OASIS, and not be the
responsibility of the PGB or TSC? This could be done with redirects or
additional script automation to limit publishing errors.
5. Issue: We need to understand how the existing open-services.netsite
would be integrated with, linked to, be part of, etc. the OASIS OSLC Open
Project. Would it be possible to use the current open-services.netsite
as the Open Project site, and use a redirect to provide an additional URL
alias for OASIS? This would leverage a lot of site development work and
infrastructure that is already done.
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575
From: Carol
Geyer <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>
To: oslc-sc@lists.oasis-open.org,
OSLC Core TC <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>,
OASIS OSLC Domains TC Discussion List <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: TC
Administrator <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>,
Scott McGrath <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
Date: 12/20/2018
01:29 PM
Subject: [oslc-sc]
Re: OASIS OSLC Open Project Proposal
Sent by: <oslc-sc@lists.oasis-open.org>
OSLC StC and TCs,
We are excited by the possibility of transitioning the OSLC Member Section
and TCs to an Open Project.
Our answers to your questions are in red below. We're happy to discuss
on or in advance of the StC call on Jan 21.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:13 PM Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
The OASIS OSLC Membership Steering Committee (StC) proposes to migrate
the current OASIS OSLC standardization activities to a new OASIS OSLC Open
Project. The purposes of this migration are to:
* Engage a broader community in OSLC technical work by allowing participation
and contribution from non-members without incurring dues or fees
* Increase OSLC adoption by encouraging more contribution, awareness and
users
* Provide a context in which to develop related work products including
open source reference implementations, sample applications, and other collateral
that expand and complement the OASIS Standards track documents
* Simplify the infrastructure and processes for developing OASIS Standards
* Reduce fragmentation in the OSLC community by providing a central, world
wide, respected organization in which to develop OSLC related work products
Specifically, the StC proposes the following:
1. Utilize the current StC members to form the initial OSLC Project Governing
Board (PGB), retaining the current chair
2. The current Core and Domains TC members are merged and become the initial
OSLC Technical Steering Committee, retaining the current chairs and cochairs.
3. The existing OSLC Core and Domains GitHub repositories will be migrated
as is to the OSLC Open Project
4. The existing OSLC4JS project will also be migrated to the OSLC Open
Project and will provide a code base that establishes a Statement of Use
of the OSLC Standards and a code base for exploring and validating proposed
changes to the standards
5. The existing eclipse/Lyo Open Source project at eclipse.orgwill
remain unchanged in order to leverage the eclipse governance process and
Type B due diligence.
This proposal is subject to approval by the StC, with the decision scheduled
to be addressed at the next StC meeting, Jan 21, 2019.
In order to facilitate the decision process, the StC would like clarification
on the following questions.
1. What exactly are the Open Project fees and who pays them?
Open Project fees are used to fund core services provided by OASIS (legal,
technical, and fiscal administration, basic marketing support, etc.).
Unlike OASIS TCs (which are funded by inclusive OASIS membership dues and
where dues are required for technical participation), each Open Project
is funded by fees paid by its own sponsoring organizations (we're calling
these "Project Backers"). The funding provided by Project Backers
enables anyone in the community to participate technically without paying
dues.Basic
Project Backer fees are paid annually. The fees are scaled, based on the
organizationâs employee headcount:
$
25,000: 2,000+ employees
$
15,000: 500-1,999 employees
$
10,000: 100-499 employees
$
5,000: 10-99 employees
$
2,000: <10 employees
$
1,000: Nonprofit, university, local or non-OECD government
Project
Backer organizations each receive a seat on the Project Governing Board
(PGB) as well as exclusive visibility and promotional benefits.
For
OSLC... if the StC and TCs decide in January to form the Open Project (in
time for inclusion in OASISâ program roll-out in late March), OASIS will
waive the Backer fees for the organizations that are represented on the
current OSLC MS StC for the foreseeable future, provided that those companies
retain their OASIS Foundational Sponsor, Sponsor, or Contributor memberships.
Organizations
not represented on the current OSLC MS StC will be able to become OSLC
Backers by paying the annual fees listed above.
Note:
This offer covers core services provided by OASIS. If the OSLC PGB determines
the need for supplemental activities (code auditing, event hosting, consultants,
etc.), then additional funding will be required. OASIS staff will work
with the OSLC PGB to determine its funding requirements and how to best
meet them.
1.1. What are the startup and annual fees for an Open Project?
1.2. It is our understanding that the PGC requires a minimum threshold
in annual sponsorship commitments by OASIS member companies. What is this
minimum threshold?
Normally, OASIS requires new projects to identify commitments of at least
$25,000 in annual Project Backers fees and at least two organizations for
its PGB before it can be launched.
Current
OASIS OSLC members will enjoy the fee waiver noted above, but still will
need to have at least two organizations on its PGB. These may be either
current MS StC organizations (holding OASIS Foundational, Sponsor, or Contributors
membership) or new organizations that pay the annual OSLC Project Backer
fee.
1.3. What are OASIS members of the PGC expected to contribute to the Open
Project fees?
Current OSLC MS organizations are not expected to contribute additional
funding for the foreseeable future to cover the core services provided
by OASIS. If the OSLC PGB decides supplemental activities/services are
needed, fees may be necessary.
1.4. What is the relationship between the OASIS member dues and Open Project
fees?
That is, if an OASIS member company participates in many Open Projects
that develop different OASIS Standards, will the member company have to
pay OASIS membership fees as well as additional fees for each Open Project
for which they are PGC members?
Technically, thereâs no relationship between OASIS membership and Open
Project sponsorship. Each Open Project is funded by its own Project Backers.
In
special cases, we may offer OASIS members a reduced or waived fee to become
Project Backers for specific Open Projects (e.g., our current offering
to OSLC MS members).
1.5. What happens of the member participation in the PGC falls below the
minimum threshold, but there is still ongoing work by the Technical Steering
Committee in the open source and/or specification deliverables?
The OP program is designed to gracefully degrade in such cases. If the
OP no longer has at least two Project Backers:
- OASIS will
continue to provide free public access to the project's deliverables in
perpetuity.
- The project's
repositories remain open. Contributions and comments may be accepted, and
successor Maintainers may be appointed.
- The project
will no longer receive facilitation or other services from OASIS.
- The repoâs
content wonât continue to be eligible for approval as Project Specifications
or advanced through the OASIS standards track.
2. What are the rules for non-member participants, contributors, maintainers
and PGB members?
2.1. Do non-members of either the Technical Steering Committee or Project
Governing Board have voting rights?
In keeping with common open source practices, Open Projects rules allow
most decisions to be made by group consensus.
Members
of the PGB approve major governance and advancement actions via ballot
when needed.
Members
of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) are free to determine how to
manage achieving consensus; voting is not required.
2.2. How are these voting rights calculated? At the discretion of the PGB?
Decisions are made on the PGB by one-org/one-vote. Each Project Backer
organization has one seat on the PGB.
TSC members
are selected for their technical contributions to the project, regardless
of whether or not they are employed by Project Backers. Thisgives
the project another opportunity for inclusive leadership.
2.3. Do all voting members have to sign the CLA (even if they don't contribute
content)?
All PGB members must sign the CLA regardless of whether or not they contribute
content.
3. Regarding Legal entity, oversight, management of IP and licensing agreements,
trademarks and copyrights: Specifically what services will OASIS provide
in order to assess the IP of Open Project work products, including dependencies
on components outside the project?
For example, open source projects often have dependencies on other open
source projects. In order to assess IP exposure, it is typically necessary
to examine all direct and transitive dependencies to ensure there are no
licensing issues. This often requires code scans to detect potential issues.
Will OASIS provide these services?
Upon request from a PGB, OASIS will contract with a third-party to provide
code scan services. OASIS will work with the PGB to identify the provider
and scope of service that best meets their projectâs needs.
Code
scans are not included in the core services provided by OASIS for all Open
Projects. The cost to provide this service will have to be covered by supplemental
funding (e.g. fees for Project Backers).
If
OSLC requires code scans, let us know as soon as possible. OASIS will work
with the StC to determine specific needs, evaluate service provider options,
and agree on how the cost will be covered.
4. Will the current OSLC TC GitHub repos, wikis and issues be migrated
as is to the new open project?
Yes (assuming participants agree to re-contribute them). When the
outgoing license is royalty-free, and the selected incoming FOSS license
is reasonably permissive, itâs an easy ask from the participants. This
is made even easier when a known, stable group is involved, as is the case
with OSLC.
4.1. Will there be any impact on existing TC work products?
Not on the TC-approved versions. Once a published OASIS Committee
Specification, always a published OASIS Committee Specification.
4.2. Will the open project specification template be different than what
is currently being used by the OSLC TCs, and automated through ReSpec?
We are trying to minimize spec rework and ReSpec updates.
Specification templates for Open Project work are based on the current
TC templates. While there will be some labeling differences, rework will
be minimal.
4.3. The Open Project specification lifecycle appears to require statements
of use before public review. What are the implications for OSLC Domain
and Core TC documents that are already in progress?
Open Projects Specifications only require public reviews and Statements
of Use when they move forward as Candidate OASIS Standards (in the same
way a TC would proceed). SoU are not required for a public review. Migrating
to Open Projects should have little effect on existing work.
4.4. Are there any changes in how Open Project standards track work products
are published by OASIS?
Specifically I'm trying to understand if the issue we had with document
relative links being broken by the OASIS publishing process will be resolved
by migrating to an Open Project so that we don't have do the work to modify
ReSpec to fix up links on document publish.
The specifics on this are TBD, but we are confident we can work out an
arrangement where the canonical standard lives on the OP repo with a backup
verified copy on docs.oasis-open.org.
5. What are the hosting constraints and any additional costs associated
with utilizing the Open Project Web site?
We have just deployed a new open-servicers.netsite.
This site was developed using HUGO (https://gohugo.io).
Can we continue using this technology and URL for the Open Project web
site? Note that it is necessary to preserve the open-service.netdomain
since the OSLC namespaces utilize this domain name for backward compatibility
and access to machine readable vocabulary documents.
Details on this will require investigation, but we donât expect a problem.
We will want to add boilerplate text and minimal branding to the site,
and some kind of linking or mirroring so that material cross-references
into OASIS resources. Staying with this current infrastructure and URLs
will make life easier for all of us.
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575
--
Carol Geyer
Chief Development Officer
Open Source and Standards Communities
OASIS
--
/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
--
/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 [attachment "OSLC-Open-Project-transition.docx"
deleted by Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM]
Attachment:
OSLC-Open-Project-transition-jra.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]