Groups - Charter-clarification-rev2 uploaded

[Jacques Durand<jdurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

        Submitter's message
        This is a proposed update to the charter which seems to us to better qualify as a "clarification" (as opposed to a scope-changing rechartering). Issue with previous "clarification":
- by allowing the *standardization* ? not just the definitions - of concrete component type to be in-scope (?Standardization of a basic set of non-vendor specific, concrete component types,??) then the charter allows component definitions of specific applications stacks such as some ?non-vendor specific? open-source to become TOSCA standards, while possibly competing with vendor-specific ones that cannot get the status of TOSCA standard, the latter thus being at a disadvantage.
- So the new revision here is keeping  ?concrete component type? definitions in-scope of TOSCA TC activity, but not to become ?standards?: they would remain non-normative, as suggested by deliverable #2.
- At the same time, some abstract def of component types (e.g. generic ones such as ?DBMS?, ?Web Server?, ?OS?, etc.) can and should be in-scope to be standardized.
- The term ?non-vendor specific? is also too vague and not really helping, according to our legal counsel. So removed here from the "re-clarification".
        
-- Mr Jacques Durand

Document Name: Charter-clarification-rev2

---

Description
Issue with previous "clarification":
- by allowing the *standardization* ? not just the definitions - of
concrete component type to be in-scope (?Standardization of a basic set of
non-vendor specific, concrete component types,??) then the charter allows
component definitions of specific applications stacks such as some
?non-vendor specific? open-source to become TOSCA standards, while possibly
competing with vendor-specific ones that cannot get the status of TOSCA
standard, the latter thus being at a disadvantage.
- So the new revision here is keeping ?concrete component type?
definitions in-scope of TOSCA TC activity, but not to become ?standards?:
they would remain non-normative, as suggested by deliverable #2.
- At the same time, some abstract def of component types (e.g. generic ones
such as ?DBMS?, ?Web Server?, ?OS?, etc.) can and should be in-scope to be
standardized.
- The term ?non-vendor specific? is also too vague and not really helping,
according to our legal counsel. So removed here from the
"re-clarification".
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Mr Jacques Durand
Group: OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2013-06-18 23:40:00