How is the CGL adding value in 2020 (Was: Re: CGL 5.0 Registration)

["Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:41:28PM -0500, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> 
> As I'm sure you and others have noticed, the CGL workgroup as an entity
> and as a registration body has been rather quiet over the last several
> years.  This is due to a number of factors, external and internal, not the
> least of which is the reality that Linux as a whole is much more robust
> and "carrier-ready" than it was when the workgroup was first formed.
> 
> That said, we had a quick conversation over the weekend and I'm here to
> reaffirm the support within the group for the CGL specification and the
> registration process.
> 
> I'm going to take some time over the next couple of days to catch up on
> the outstanding CGL work and I will be updating everyone accordingly.
> Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions or
> concerns or if you'd like to bring up any additional topics.

Something which I'd love to understand is what is the market demand
for CGL registration today.  That is, what kind of customers are
making buying decisions based on whether a Linux distribution is CGL
certified or not; what value are they getting from the CGL
certification; what parts of it are most valuable; and how could the
CGL specification be changed to improve its value to a larger segment
of the customers in this market?

I assume it must be adding value in some way, because at least some
number of Linux distributions are requesting CGL registration, and
presumably they wouldn't be spending engineering effort doing this
unless it was helping them in the market place.  It's just a question
of how it is helping, and what segment of the market it happens to be,
since this would drive any potential future work on the CGL
specification.

Cheers,

					- Ted
_______________________________________________
Lf_carrier mailing list
Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier