Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [open-regulatory-compliance] [EXTERNAL] Agenda request: Consideration of DOU

Stephen,

I'm glad you think this is an important topic as well. Let's make it first on the agenda for Thursday to ensure it gets the time it needs to be discussed synchronously.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 12:54 PM Stephen Walli <Stephen.Walli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Omkhar: I’m trying to understand your concerns.
What specific bureaucratic work is burdensome here? 
How is it specifically burdensome on the Foundation member class? 

The work of developing specifications to support the EU request on CEN/CENELEC will be done in Eclipse specifications projects. Nothing requires any member to adhere to an Eclipse spec, and nothing in this specific working group will require any member to adhere or commit to a CEN/CENELEC standard. I’m trying to understand if the perception of burden is tied to expectations down the road for the outcomes of the work. 

Having served as a chair of the Eclipse SDV WG steering committee as well as a chair for the LF Confidential Computing Consortium directed fund (an LF directed fund is the analog to an Eclipse Foundation for other readers), I have some insight into the organizational work involved in doing the actual work members come together around. I’m trying to understand what’s burdensome because a chair may carry extra organizational work, but I don’t see how it effects members in any class. 

Sitting in the LF/OpenSSF Governance Committee (and being the alternate governing board member) I appreciate how the LF/OpenSSF is funded and staffed, but your concerns as written speak to "Foundations with limited resources. I would really appreciate if other Foundation participants in this discussion would please share their specific concerns as well. This is how the FAQ gets better. As I said in earlier email, I am happy to get on a call to answer any questions from my experiences in the process.  

Spending time discussing alternative DOU/MOU structures where code-hosting nonprofits aren’t members doing work with the rest of the members seems unhelpful. That is why I would really like to understand the specifics of the burdens that people see here. 
kind regards, always stephe

-- 

+1 425 785 6102 (he/him)

Thursday Morning Coffee” on Standards & Open Source

N.B. My working day may not be your working day! Please don’t feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside of your normal working hours.

 

From: open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Omkhar Arasaratnam via open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 at 3:05 PM
To: Open Regulatory Compliance Working Group <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Omkhar Arasaratnam <omkhar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [open-regulatory-compliance] Agenda request: Consideration of DOU

Hi folks,

Please add an agenda item to Thursday's meeting to discuss using a Document of Understanding (DOU) rather than Foundation membership for code-hosting non-profits that wish to participate in the CRA standards-setting process.

We understand entirely the fiduciary accountabilities associated with running and governing the Open Regulatory Compliance Working Group. We support the appropriate board, governance, and steering committees to ensure that the fees paid by members are used judiciously. This must continue to occur, irrespective of the approach taken by code-hosting non-profits. 

Our interest, and the interest of several other code-hosting non-profits, is to ensure we can collaborate with minimal overhead, bound to the CRA only. The current proposal for Foundation Membership incurs a significant bureaucratic burden of Compliance Working Group membership, plus Eclipse membership, which is unnecessary and will stifle participation from Foundations with limited resources. 

In addition, the current membership agreement is broadly constructed. We're only interested in setting up a method for collaborating on CRA. Future legislation can be considered in the future.

The overhead associated with Foundation membership has no upside for code-hosting non-profits whose only interest is setting technical standards.

As such, we'd like to allocate appropriate time on Thursday to discuss implementing a DOU in lieu of Foundation membership of code-hosting non-profits with this group.

--
Omkhar Arasaratnam
General Manager
OpenSSF  | The Linux Foundation
https://openssf.org/


--

--oa

Back to the top