About Linux Collaboration Summit

[mika.kukkonen@xxxxxxx (mika.kukkonen@xxxxxxx)]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>Behalf Of ext Haddad Ibrahim-WPFT64
(...)
>I think as members if we see value at keeping CGL going, 
>enabling the registration for 4.0

I think enabling registration for 4.0 is a _must_ and the top
priority for us who care about CGL (past and maybe future ;-).

If LF is unable to do it, then necessary steps need to be
taken to make it happen outside LF...

>and continuing to work on new requirements

This is something that needs careful thinking and maybe
repositioning. The impression I got from LF is that they
want to focus more on implementing than on writing specs.
That is also the direction I am trying to push this brave
new company towards to, so I sympathize with LF's view.

But one thing that is certain is that world changes, so
there probably needs to be some kind of work on specs too.
I just think we should reconsider how that work is to be
done; one idea would be move to towards IETF-like RFC
process.

>and collaborating with SCOPE Alliance, then the LF should
>support that.

I think us and some other NEP's have made it clear, that we
consider SCOPE to be our "main specs forum" from now on,
and so that is where we will focus most of our spec-writing
efforts. This obviously has impact on CGL specs work.

>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.

Yes. There was an interesting email by Dan Kohn (attached),
where he highlighted one opinion about areas/features where
competition (i.e. Solaris ;-) is doing thing better. I think
competition is good and healthy, as long as I/we are betting
on the winning horse ... ;-)

As a side note, as I have been drafting "Yet Another Corporate
Strategy on Open Source and Linux", I have found that many
slides from year 2001 (when CGL was born) are still pretty
valid ;-)

>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. 

Amen.

>Today with the new working model of LF, I am not sure how much 
>members needs (creators and contributors to CGL) are addressed.

Yes, and my impression is, that if we on this list will not drive
our needs towards LF, they certainly will be happy to ignore us
and put our money on yet another attempt to make LSB actually
matter (/me is not happy about that).

>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.

Well, we (= me & TimoJ) certainly have a good excuse with this
new company thingy; what is yours? ;-)

>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 ;-) ? ) 

I think asking LF to do something is waste of time. We need to
put together a clear and agreed plan how we want "CGL-world"
to look like, and then put our demands..err.. request on LF's
table. Otherwise nothing concrete will happen in June meeting.

>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). 

I got 100% the same impression.

>Given what CGL specs are (same applies to MLI ), I am not
>sure if LSB-ing is the right direction.

There is a _huge_ difference between a "bleeding edge" and
"industry guiding" (= CGL) and "codifying the de-facto standard"
and "handing out certificates nobody cares about" (= LSB). My
personal opinion only, TimoJ would/will probably say this in
more polite way ;-)

>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.

Well, do we? I feel that LF seems to be much more revenue-driven
than OSDL ever was (and even OSDL was much focused on getting more
members to pay the bills), and so I feel my company's interest
might not be in LF's agenda. So I guess I look at you "big spenders"
(= Intel, IBM & HP) who sit in LF's board; what is your interest
on CGL's future?
 
>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. 

Yes, which is actually quite sad, as I think "the world" needs
an organization like OSDL was, that gathers interest groups under
one forum to talk about common issues. Things are so much more
difficult and complicated when you need to care about things
like NDA's and contracts etc. before you can talk to the "other
guy".

Let's hope the future is brighter than it looks now.

--MiKu
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Lf_vac] Gap analysis of Solaris vs. Linux
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:57:03 +0300
Size: 5182
Url: https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/private/lf_carrier/attachments/20070427/dc35fa3b/attachment.eml