[OCF]OCF Agenda for OLS

[Alan Robertson]

Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2003-07-21T15:51:35,
>    Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh> said:
> 
> 
>>Here is the proposed agenda for Sunday, please send suggestions for changes:
> 
> 
> I'd be up for moving the meeting to an earlier time so we are done at
> 12. Or, if everybody wants to, continue it during or after the Hacker
> Bike Ride, as I'd really love to go there to stretch from the week-long
> conference ;-)
> http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2003/view_abstract.php?talk=197

I agree.  Unfortunately, it's a bit too late to change the time, I think, 
and we lose use of the room at 1 PM.  The reason why it's so late, is 
because *you* requested it to start later.


>>	- Future plans:
>>		The areas we've had the most success in are those areas
>>		where we very nearly have an implementation ready to go.
>>		Is this a practical prerequisite for the standards?
> 
> 
> It should be.
> 
> 
>>Anything else?
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering what to do about lack of interest. Right now, we are
> _still_ trying to standarize hot air. I think we made a bad approach
> here, and the "Future plans" summarizes the problem.
> 
> I'd say that we first need to have code (of course with the intent to
> make it a standard), and then try to get people to agree with us on it.
> 
> I'll put it even more strongly: Personally, I'm fed up with spending
> time discussing standards which very few people outside the Linux HA
> project have shown very limitted interest in. Time which would be better
> used to actually implement them.
> 
> I think we should try to learn from IEEE - show two implementations
> before we consider talking to you about a standard.

I assume you mean the IETF.  But, you're missing an important part... No one 
comes together to ratify a standard based on compatible implementations of a 
standard without creating a draft standard for the implementations to 
implement.  This is what we're doing.  We're trying to create a draft 
standard that people can implement.  So, I think we're in agreement.  If 
not, help me understand what the distinction is.

We have the following three interested parties at this point it time:

	Steeleye Lifekeeper
	IBM Tivoli System Automation
	Linux-HA project


I think this is enough to get started.  I've been thinking about doing this 
in the current version of heartbeat.  Maybe I'll do that this week...
	
-- 
     Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh>

"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship...  Let me claim 
from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce