charter: Drop TDC's b.i (portability) #3
Conversation
We don't want that to be part of the header.
Because "everything the OCI is working on" is usually more important
than distinguishing between specifications and implementations. And
"OCI Specifications and/or OCI Projects" (which was used several
times) didn't list the certification tooling or application described
in the Trademark Board's old f.i ("creating the OCI trademarks
associated with OCI Specifications, OCI Projects, the Open Container
Format (OCF) or OCI Certified Solution"). It's better to just lump
all these efforts together under "OCI Projects" and then reference
them as a group later in the charter.
This is already covered by OCI Value's b, which is linked to the TDC as a separate scope (the previous TDC's b.ii, which is now b.i).
|
@vbatts and @jonboulle raised concerns on IRC about losing scoping information with this change. With #2 I've tried to move scoping into the “OCI Projects” section, so the TDC section can focus on how we run a TDC without having to sepcify what that TDC is actually working on. I see two possible approaches to addressing the loss-of-scoping information: a. Explicitly mention runtime and format specs under “OCI Projects”. Which way we go is a wash for me, so if anybody else has a preference, just let me know what I should do (or suggest another approach). |
|
Changes to the charter happen through the LinuxFoundation and the charter just reflects the official document for the charter. |
|
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:04:54PM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:
Is there a channel for proposing changes for LF consideration? This |
|
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:04:54PM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:
And is there a threshold for this? For example, involving the LF |
2 participants
This is already covered by OCI Value's b, which is linked to the TDC
as a separate scope (the previous TDC's b.ii, which is now b.i).
This builds on #2, but I'm happy to rebase it if #2 turns out to be
controversial.