Simplify mission of OCI #77
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Chris Aniszczyk <[email protected]>>
caniszczyk
force-pushed
the
simplify-mission-statement
branch
from
13eb902 to
ec2cda2
Compare
| | ---------------- |:----------------:| | ||
| | Initial release | 13 November 2015 | | ||
| | Update | 6 May 2020 | | ||
| | Update | 18 May 2020 | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this table is meant to be appended to on each update. Actually the Update entry from the first update last week probably should've been
| | Update | 18 May 2020 | | |
| | v1.1 (update OCI scope) | 6 May 2020 | | |
| | v1.2 (further clarify OCI scope) | 18 May 2020 | |
| ## 1. Mission of the Open Container Initiative (“OCI”). | ||
|
|
||
| The Open Container Initiative provides an open source technical community within which industry participants may easily contribute to building vendor-neutral, portable and open specifications and runtime that deliver on the promise of containers as a source of application portability backed by a certification program. | ||
| The Open Container Initiative provides an open source technical community within which industry participants may easily contribute to building vendor-neutral, portable and open specifications, reference implementations, and tools that deliver on the promise of containers as a source of application portability backed by a certification program. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good interim change, but we really should have a proper rewrite of some of the more substantial parts of the charter. I'll send a draft PR sometime this week with the sorts of changes I'd propose us having.
|
Thanks @caniszczyk; I think this looks reasonable. But per @cyphar's comment, I think the only thing to resolve is whether we want to use a piecemeal approach over the next month or two to edits, or do we want to collect up a "working copy" and only have one major "update"/release of the new charter when approved? I could go either way, but I think one practical matter is that the "update" table at the top could get rather long and generate a bunch of interim charters while we work on the overall complete update. One option that keeps PRs simple and easily reviewable is to separate the concept of edits versus a "point release" update of the overall charter. Edits (like this one) are easily changelog tracked here in GH by commit, but a release would be tracked by actually producing a version of this with a specific release version (1.1, 1.2, ...) similar to the code release process on GH. |
|
Alternatively, we could have a draft branch which we make changes against and then we have a final merge after a 2/3 TOB vote. I am working on a set of changes to the charter to try to update and clarify several aspects of the project governance. |
|
My idea is we try to iterate with small updates as we all get busy and it's
easier for us to approve a small update then a large change.
…On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:39 AM Aleksa Sarai [see §317C(6)] < ***@***.***> wrote:
Alternatively, we could have a draft branch which we make changes against
and then we have a final merge after a 2/3 TOB vote.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#77 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAPSIOF54GYFAPHLQBQZ6DRSQBU3ANCNFSM4NDRPCVQ>
.
--
Cheers,
Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 512 961 6719
|
|
LGTM |
|
I'm currently working on a larger Charter cleanup which would best be merged with these changes. @caniszczyk would you mind if I carry this patch in my series? Or would you prefer to merge this change first and then I rebase my work on top of it? The reason is that most of sections 1, 2, 5, and 6 need to be reworked and this change is part of the section 1 rework that I'd like to do. |
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
1 similar comment
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM. |
Based on feedback from @samuelkarp
Signed-off-by: Chris Aniszczyk [email protected]