CGL 4.0 registration

[troy.heber@xxxxxx (Troy Heber)]

On 05/03/07 07:14, Seiler, Glenn wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we start a new thread that focuses
> specifically on a proposal for registration that we can accomplish
> with Linux Foundation.

OK, here is the new thread.

> We may want to start with the gaps that still exist from the old
> plan.

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how to proceeded on
registration, with the uncertainty of where CGL stands today within
the Linux Foundation.

If we were to assume that the merger never occurred and we were going
to continue with our existing plans with OSDL the following still
needs to happen:

CGL 4.0 was to have have a completely new registration process. First
OSDL ask us to rename the process from registration to "Conformance
Disclosure". Regardless of the name used, the idea was to have a
review board that consisted of techboard members and the CGL
initiative manager. We were developing a standard registration
template that would be used by the applying distributions to disclose
how they complied with the requirements. After completion the
applicant would send the form to the review boards mailing list. The
review board would review the submission, work with the applicant to
address any issues with the submission, and then finalize the
registration.

	1. The 4.0 PoC database needs to be updated (we have the
	updates but have never had adequate access to do the work).

	2. Finish documenting policies and procedures for the
	review board

	3. Finish the registration template

	4. We need a web presence to host the registration
	infrastructure, i.e. documentation, listings, etc.

	5. We need a mailing alias setup for the registration team.

	6. The 4.0 PoC database needs to be made public

	7. Public announcement that registration is open


Some of this work has already been started, but was put on hold by the
merger. A lot of the work is based around having access to the
infrastructure. For example the PoC database, the website, mailing
lists, etc.

I just don't think we're in any position to move forward on this until
we have a better understanding of how CGL will fit in with the LF
framework.

That's my take to get the discussion rolling...

Troy