Dear all,
First of all we’d like to express our appreciation to Eclipse stepping up and organising the open source community’s work in relation to CRA, as well as for the call earlier this week to share and discuss the latest on Eclipse Open
Regulatory Compliance WG.
Understanding the WG charter is in public review (was a bit of a surprise, found out only at the call) ending May 29th we wanted to provide our comments. In this message we wanted to limit ourselves to the most pressing ones. In our
view
My colleague Sharon already clarified that the 14 days of public review was a miscommunication. The charter will be adopted at a launch meeting of the Working Group that will happen in a few weeks after we onboard the founding members of the Working Group.
1. The WG – and thus the charter – should focus on the work necessary in the context of the CRA. This is what we have now at hand and need to concentrate on. Additional regulation related work may be added as needed.
In addition, the work should focus on open source, not try to address generic sw development and CI/CD.
We agree that the topic to address at the moment is the CRA, but we think that what we put in place in the WG enables us to address other regulations.
The focus is definitely on open source and the processes required to have an open source supply chain in conformity with the CRA.
I think that the processes and best practices we will define should be applicable in some cases to non open source software, but the intention is to make sure that those processes properly address the specificities of open source development models.
2. Open Source Steward is missing from the charter. The term should be added, and the WG shall aim at definitions that would support the various ways open source communities are organized currently. More specifically, not all open source today is developed
in the auspices of foundations as they are currently known. Those other current ways shall be supported going forward and whatever the definitions are they should allow for other future as of yet unknown ways without the need to change the specifications/regulation.
Specifications shall attempt to not ossify open source ecosystem.
I can see the description of Open Source Steward in the draft charter, in the description of the different classes of membership.
It will indeed be possible in the specs to address the different ways of doing open source, from the perspectives of stewards and also from the perspectives of manufacturers.
3. Clear explanation on to what the money that is collected through WG membership fees is planned to be used, and what is the justification for the proposed fee structure.
Indeed, we will have to develop a program plan and a budget that will clarify how money will be used.
Two points I would like to clarify:
1/ A large part of the money is used to staff the working groups
2/ We waived membership fees for 2024 so there will be no money before 2025.
Looking forward to your thoughts and wishing all relaxing weekend.
cheers
Timo
_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org
