[OCF]OCF Agenda for OLS

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

--LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2003-07-24T08:32:48,
   Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh> said:

> I agree.  Unfortunately, it's a bit too late to change the time, I think,=
=20
> and we lose use of the room at 1 PM.  The reason why it's so late, is=20
> because *you* requested it to start later.

We can always move the room to mine, that's no problem, I'm stilling
until Monday.

And yes, I agree that you are right, I was just testing whether people
really felt that the meeting could not be moved to a BOF session
instead.

> I assume you mean the IETF.  But, you're missing an important part... No=
=20
> one comes together to ratify a standard based on compatible implementatio=
ns=20
> of a standard without creating a draft standard for the implementations t=
o=20
> implement.  This is what we're doing.  We're trying to create a draft=20
> standard that people can implement.  So, I think we're in agreement.  If=
=20
> not, help me understand what the distinction is.

I think the thing which has annoyed me in the past was that we took so
much time on discussion instead of coding. ;-)

> 	Steeleye Lifekeeper
> 	IBM Tivoli System Automation

These two are _interested_ in adopting a standard. They will not take a
lead. They may add compatibility for what we conclude, and then provide
feedback. But they haven't really done that yet much.

> 	Linux-HA project

So that sort of leaves ourselves... And I'd rather work on that instead
right now. I'm "just" unhappy with the speed of progress OCF has (not)
made and that I feel it is in fact taking resources away from Linux HA.

And I'm thinking that 4 hours more of discussion on OCF are not helping
us move along. We should rather spend 4 hours discussing implementation
of what we have (the RA API, mostly, implemented as part of the Local
Resource Manager) in heartbeat.

If that sounds frustrated, that's not entirely true - I am merely
disillusionized a bit about outside participation and would rather spend
time getting work done, and then saying "So there. You may adopt our
API.". That seems to have worked for some other Open Source projects.

> I think this is enough to get started.  I've been thinking about doing th=
is=20
> in the current version of heartbeat.  Maybe I'll do that this week...

That would certainly be appreciated.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e <lmb@suse.de>

--=20
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
 =20
"If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
  -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy            -- Louis Pasteur

--LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/IByBudf3XQV4S2cRAoUiAJkBRZyX0z4xE7rBNmlmcWocRO8ewACfbj3f
YbxqF0kT1HL4ywAN8B3fKEk=
=6coZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1--