CGL4.0 registration

[xiaowu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxx (xiaowu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxx)]

hi,

Thank you so much for your reply.
I still have one more question regarding CGL 4.0 registration.

As it is mentioned in the registration process document, CGL 4.0 
Registration is
a Self-Registration. and Mr. Dan Kohn  also said, there will be no Test Suite
provided so far for CGL 4.0 registration.

So i am wondering whether CGL would provide any other methods to help our
company to check our product against requirement?  or we just provide our data
explanation in 'Note' field in the Registration template?

BTW, I've sent emails to LF to enquire the LF membership 2 times, but there is
no reply so far.  Can you let me know if there are other ways through which i
can enquire LF about the membership, other than
membership@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?

Thanks a lot.

WU

------ Original Message from "Peter R. Badovinatz" 
<tabmowzo@xxxxxxxxxx>: ------

>
> xiaowu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> First of all, thank you for your prompt reply.
>> we are enquiring LF for the membership.
>> I now still have some further questions regarding CGL 4.0  registration:
>> 1. is there any extra charge for CGL registration?
>
> No.
>
>> 2. When does the 'CGL compliance' stikcer expire?
>> Will it hold valid for one year? or until next generation CGL
>> requirements are
>> issued?
>
> It is not a 'compliance' sticker, rather, it is simply a
> registration pointer that you've completed the registration
> process.
>
> That said, it will not expire, it will remain online.  However,
> as future versions are released it would become less interesting
> to only be registered against an old version.
>>
>> 3.Roughly how long does it take to receive the approval from LF_CGL after
>> submitting the registration template?
>>
>
> About 30 to 45 days.
>
>>
>> 4.Upon the successful registration, what can we expect? (e.g. in which
>> way we
>> will be tagged as 'CGL compliance')?  or only a link logo listed on CGL
>> website?
>>
>
> Only the link.  We do not currently state 'CGL Compliance', only
> that you're registered.
>
>>
>> 5.when is CGL 5.0 Registration likely to be launched?
>>
>
> We do not yet have a schedule for CGL 5.
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much for your kind assistance.
>> looking forward to your reply
>>
>> cheers
>> wu
>>
>> ------ Original Message from Dan Kohn <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx>: ------
>>
>>> Thanks for your message.  At this time, we do not have a test suite
>>> associated with CGL 4.0.  Therefore, we describe the CGL 4.0 process
>>> as a registration process as opposed to a certification one.  We are
>>> considering building a test suite as part of the CGL 5.0 process we
>>> are in the process of chartering.
>>>
>>> And yes, we are requiring that only LF Members may CGL register.
>>> Silver membership is US$20,000 per year.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your interest.
>>>
>>>            - dan
>>> --
>>> Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> COO, The Linux Foundation <http://www.linux-foundation.org>
>>> <http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2007, at 10:53 PM, xiaowu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> Here are some questions about CGL 4.0 Registration.
>>>>
>>>> 1. is there any test cases suite provided, so with it we can test
>>>> whether our
>>>> product meet CGL 4.0 requirements ?
>>>> 2. is LF membership  or affiliate a must to  apply for CGL 4.0
>>>> Registration?
>>>>    if yes, can you tell me what documents are needed to become a LF
>>>> member,and
>>>> also the fees?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>> wu
>>>> 2007-08-06
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lf_carrier mailing list
>>>> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> 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
>
> --
> Peter R. Badovinatz aka 'Wombat'
> STG Telecommunications, Linux & Standards
> preferred: tabmowzo@xxxxxxxxxx / alternate: wombat@xxxxxxxxxx
> These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of IBM, Corp.
>
>