About Linux Collaboration Summit

[andrew.wilson@xxxxxxxxx (Wilson, Andrew)]

Ibrahim, I believe this mailing list is as close to CGL steering as
currently exists.
Again, I think the interested member companies should ideally go into
the June
meeting with an agreed-upon plan, and not wait another 6-7 weeks just to
have a conversation
about CGL next steps with TLF management.
 
cheers
 
atw

________________________________

From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Haddad Ibrahim-WPFT64
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:00 PM
To: John J Grana; Seiler, Glenn
Cc: Smarduch Mario-CMS063; lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx;
MacDonald, Joe
Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit


Hi All, 
 
I think as members if we see value at keeping CGL going, enabling the
registration 
for 4.0 and continuing to work on new requirements and collaborating
with SCOPE 
Alliance, then the LF should support that. The members of then OSDL (now
LF) saw 
big value in having a common requirement base that the distributors and
maintainers can 
work from resulting in Linux capabilities that will fit us better. The
results today are 
clear with the success of CGL being a core component of telecom
platforms and being
a core building block in the ecosystem around it, and many many products
based
on CGL and many many deployments in the field. 
 
Today with the new working model of LF, I am not sure how much members
needs 
(creators and contributors to CGL) are addressed. 
 
I believe we need to have a clear answer from LF on this. We have been
losing time since 
the January meeting and Yet we have no registration in place for CGL 4.0
which was 
released on Feb 27.
 
I would suggest to go with the plan Glenn suggested and at the same time
CGL 
Steering (do we still have the same structure as before??) to formally
ask clear 
clarification from LF on all these topics that are of concern to us. (or
did we lose
that right ;-) ? ) 
 
The NY meeting was disappointing. I left the meeting with the sense that

any OSDL initiative that can not be "LSB-ed" is very welcome to live
outside the
LF . (ie. LF is just a new name for FSG). Given what CGL specs are (same
applies 
to MLI ), I am not sure if LSB-ing is the right direction. I am not sure
also that creating 
an LSB CGL profile is also the right direction. But what I am sure of is
that members 
have to participate in the decision process. 
 
Just as a side note, I would also expect the LF to provide information
on the value it 
offers to its members. With OSDL, the value was the initiatives, special
interest groups,
some minor engineering / infrastructure support, initiative support
staff, PR, legal 
activities, Carriers/NEPs Forum, etc. With LF, for me at least, value is
not clear, yet. 
 
 
BR,
Ibrahim
 
 
*

________________________________

From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John
J Grana
Sent: April 26, 2007 5:15 PM
To: Seiler, Glenn
Cc: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; MacDonald, Joe;
lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Smarduch Mario-CMS063;
timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit



Folks, 

I agree with both Timo's feelings about the branding, work and efforts
spent on making CGL meaningful and Glenn's thoughts that we should
continue with completing (at a minimum) the registration process for
4.0. It would be great for LF to say we have full support from them, but
in the hopefully remote case where this doesn't occur, this email thread
can be used for now to define and document the registration/compliance
for 4.0. 

In any case, discussions and any progress made before the June meeting
would not likely be wasted, IMHO. 

Cheers 
John Grana 





"Seiler, Glenn" <glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

04/25/2007 12:56 AM 

To
<timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx>, "MacDonald, Joe" <Joe.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<CMS063@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
cc
<terence.chen@xxxxxxxxx>, <jjg@xxxxxx>,
<lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject
RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit	

		




Hey guys; 
  
As we well know, there are really two separate issues (possibly more). 
1) we have not completed the registration/compliance process for 4.0 
2) planning/gaps/requirements for a future release. 
  
These two things can potentially be accomplished separately or through
separate groups. 
  
At the CP-TA meeting last month (MV, HP, WR, PT were all in attendance)
we pretty much agreed that CP-TA was really not the place to manage CGL
registration or compliance. I can give you a breakdown of why in a
separate message, or when we meet in June. 
  
I continue to hope that LF will come through and somehow manage this
process. They are benefiting the most from brand, they need some skin in
the game. It is up to us to pursue that agenda in the June meetings. If
nothing else all LF has to do is execute on the plan the old CGL team
already created back at the Portland and Alameda meetings. That should
be a minimum-case scenario in my opinion. 
  
Now the requirements process and 5.0 definition is a bit more complex
with the efforts at SCOPE.  SCOPE is definitely one of the key sources
of requirements. The real issue is taking those gaps/requirements and
putting them into a spec. I think if we want this to happen at LF then
it is up to us to make that happen. We need to have a clear idea of what
support we need from LF (database?, Website support?, tech writers?,
conf call support? etc.)  If LF cannot provide these, then the member
companies would have to. If we don't think the member companies can
supply this then we have to look elsewhere as Timo implied. 
  
Perhaps we can start by identifying all the asks/needs we have from LF
for the above two scenarios? 
  
-glenn 


________________________________

From: timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx [mailto:timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:39 PM
To: MacDonald, Joe; CMS063@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: terence.chen@xxxxxxxxx; jjg@xxxxxx;
lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Seiler, Glenn
Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit



Gentlemen (or maybe this is bit too much ;-) !

This is THE issue for discussion in June. We all have been building CGL
as a brand and as content for quite some time, let's not waste it but
rather find a way to preserve it and move forward with it. Any ideas
folks might have should be socialized before June meeting and strategy
should be agreed then. If LF for some reason is not a good home for CGL,
we will figure out something else.

Cheers

 TimoJ

PS: as you can see on LF member logo pages, Nokia Siemens Networks is
now LF member as well ...

---
Timo Jokiaho +358 50 5002802 Mobile email Nokia E61 Intellisync

----Original message----
From: ext Joe MacDonald <joe.macdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: 24-4-2007
To: Smarduch Mario-CMS063 <CMS063@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: John J Grana <jjg@xxxxxx>, glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chen, Terence
<terence.chen@xxxxxxxxx>, Jokiaho Timo (NSN - FI/Espoo)
<timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit

I agree completely with both of you guys.  It'd be a shame to see CGL
atrophy after all the progress that was made on the 4.0 spec, but I also
don't think CP-TA is really the group that wants to take stewardship of
it (of course I have almost no association with CP-TA personally, so
don't read too much into that).

I'd sort of expected we would be discussing this particular topic at the
meeting at the Googleplex, but I'm also all for opening the discussion
up here first.

-Joe.

On Tue, 2007-24-04 at 15:52 -0400, Smarduch Mario-CMS063 wrote:
> John,
>     that's above my pay grade ;( - steering folks are in better
> position to
> answer (Timo, Peter, Dan, Glenn, ...) . I would think though CP-TA is
> not
> a fit. Nice plates, hopefully the cops won't pull you over if CGL
> falls through :)
> 
> - Mario
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: John J Grana [mailto:jjg@xxxxxx <mailto:jjg@xxxxxx> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:47 PM
> To: Smarduch Mario-CMS063
> Cc: glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Joe.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chen, Terence;
> timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit
>
>
>
>
> Mario,
>         Unfortunate about the travel issues... going back to Takashi's
> orginal questions, what are the latest thoughts on where CGL is going?
> Scope doesn't do specifications and CP-TA likely doesn't want to take
> on CGL. With 4.0 done (congrats to all BTW), it seems a shame to let
> the situation just "wait around"... Thoughts? Again, is this the forum
> for this discussion??
>
>
> Besides, if CGL falls apart, someone owes me $60 for a new license
> plate:
>
>
>
> Cheers
> John Grana
> Performance Technologies, Inc.
>
>
>
> "Smarduch Mario-CMS063"
> <CMS063@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by:
> lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 04/24/2007 03:27 PM
>
>
>                To
> "Chen, Terence"
> <terence.chen@xxxxxxxxx>, <timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx>,
<glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Joe.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>                cc
> lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>           Subject
> RE: [Lf_carrier]
> About Linux
> Collaboration
> Summit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Terence,
>     unfortunately Motorola has frozen travel so I'm not sure who if
> anyone
> will be there from Motorola CGL. However I think we're in agreement
> on
> future direction of CGL and  our views will be represented.
>  
> - mario
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: Chen, Terence [mailto:terence.chen@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:terence.chen@xxxxxxxxx> ]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:31 AM
> To: timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx; glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Joe.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Smarduch Mario-CMS063
> Cc: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tim Anderson; Troy Heber
> Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit
>
> Mario,
>  
> I plan to be there as well. It will be good if you and Ibrahim can
> make it for the discussion. I don't think it is invitation only...
>  
> Tim, Troy, will you able to make it?
>  
> -Terence
>  
>
>                                   
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of
> timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:51 AM
> To: glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Joe.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> CMS063@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit
>  
>  
>
> Glenn et.al
>
> Mika Kukkonen and myself will be there representing Nokia Siemens
> Networks ... yes, we got invited ;-)
>
> Cheers
>
>  TimoJ
>
> ---
> Timo Jokiaho +358 50 5002802 Mobile email Nokia E61 Intellisync
>
> ----Original message----
> From: ext Seiler, Glenn <glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: 23-4-2007
> To: MacDonald, Joe <Joe.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Smarduch
> Mario-CMS063 <CMS063@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit
>
> Hi Mario;
> Yes, this is the event that I mentioned to you in Chicago. It is the
> first LF face to face.
> I have no idea what to expect, but there is a very preliminary agenda
> floating around. It looks to be Thur thru Saturday, with many of the
> technical committees on Saturday.
>
> It is invitation only. (Weird?!). I asked Tom Hanrahan to get me an
> invite for Joe and another member of my team.
> You should have gotten one if you are on the CGL LF mailing list. That
> is not the same mailing list as the old OSDL list.
>
> Regards,
> -glenn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of
> Joe
> MacDonald
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:41 AM
> To: Smarduch Mario-CMS063
> Cc: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: About Linux Collaboration Summit
>
> Hey Mario,
>
> On Mon, 2007-23-04 at 09:32 -0400, Smarduch Mario-CMS063 wrote:
> > Where and when is it?
>
> I think this is the event Takashi is talking about:
>
>
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Linux_Foundation_Collaboration_Summit
<http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Linux_Foundation_Collaboration_Summi
t> 
>
> "The Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit
>
> We'd like to alert you to the first ever Linux Foundation
> Collaboration
> Summit taking place from June 13 through 15 at Google's Mountain View
> Campus in the Bay Area. This unique, invitation-only event will bring
> together the brightest minds in the Linux ecosystem to discuss where
> Linux is, where it needs to go and how we can all help get it there."
>
> The discussion I've seen on it has been on the VAC mailing list and as
> far as I know Glenn has arranged for an invitation to come my way,
> which
> is how I managed to sneak in.  :-)
>
> -J.
>
> >
> > - mario
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of
> Joe
> > MacDonald
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:43 AM
> > To: Takashi Ikebe
> > Cc: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: About Linux Collaboration Summit
> >
> > Konichiwa Ikebe-san,
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-23-04 at 18:57 +0900, Takashi Ikebe wrote:
> > > Hello CGL members,
> > >
> > > I would like to know if there are CGL discussion at Linux
> > > Collaboration Summit.
> > > I also want to know the latest status of CGL-WG.
> > > Is this the right list to discuss about CGL?
> > > Do you have any plan to attend the Linux Collaboration Summit?
> > >
> > > It seems there are no discussion on this ML from now..
> >
> > I'd been thinking the very same thing not too long ago, but I had
> > figured there were a couple of reasons for that.  Everyone was
> taking
> a
> > break from CGL specification work following the rush of work getting
> 4.0
> > released earlier in the year.  And everyone was still sort of
> waiting
> to
> > see what was going to happen with the CGL WG as part of the Linux
> > Foundation.
> >
> > I have a couple of things I'd planned to discuss with the group when
> > things picked up again, but hadn't gotten around to sending out an
> email
> > yet.  I certainly hope this is the right place to discuss CGL
> working
> > group topics since (I think) this is the only mailing list address I
> > have associated with the group now.
> >
> > My schedule is still a little uncertain, but I hope to be at the
> summit,
> > I should know more soon.  Hope to see everyone there.
> >
> > -Joe.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lf_carrier mailing list
> > Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
<https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lf_carrier mailing list
> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
<https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lf_carrier mailing list
> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier__________
_____________________________________
<https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier_________
______________________________________> 
> Lf_carrier mailing list
> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
<https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/private/lf_carrier/attachments/20070426/77fdd88e/attachment-0001.htm