On 11 Jun 2024, at 18:14, Gael Blondelle via open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Omkhar,
We said we wouldn’t add your topic to the agenda on Thursday as we have existing agenda topics that we know are a priority. This initiative remains open to all and we hope that the OpenSSF will join and fully participate.
As this seems to be a priority for many, can we schedule an extra meeting to discuss Omkhar’s proposal? I am not saying that the agenda you are proposing is low priority, but trying to sort out the concerns of those involved so we can focus on the work at hand seems critical to me.
/O
And BTW, Linux Foundation is already Associate members and has previously executed our working group participation agreements for other similar initiatives if that makes the process simpler for you.
Gael,
We believe there is strength in unifying the community. We're disappointed that you've decided not to discuss a simpler alternative to the Foundation membership class in an open forum. I'll convey your decision to our stakeholders and advise how/if OpenSSF will choose to participate at a later date.
If others would like to discuss the possibility of using a simpler method for collaboration, such as a DOU, please reach out to me or other OpenSSF members directly so as to respect Gael's mandate.
Hi Omkhar, all
I think a lot has been said here, and I'll just confirm that we won't have time to discuss your DOU/MOU approach in the next meeting.
We will have a packed agenda that covers a short update about the working group governance and we will switch to a presentation/discussion about the specifications needed in the context of the CRA.
After the long round of introduction in the first meeting that allowed us to see the diversity of the interested parties, Sharon Corbett, our Program Director, is committed to holding an effective meeting that will stick to the agenda to be published today or tomorrow.
Thanks for your understanding, -- Gaël Blondelle
Omkhar: Not sharing a list of specific concerns, which may be misunderstandings from all the new participants in the discussion, means we will have a potentially long unfocused discussion talking past one another because of a different understanding of terms
and processes called similar things. Having explicit concerns with referenced language shared with the list early, allows Eclipse Foundation staff to improve the FAQ, to directly address some of the concerns with explanations, to understand where actual burdens
might need to be addressed, and allows members with more experience to work with our partners to understand and solve problems. Think of it as a pull request.
As I said in earlier email, as an Eclipse Foundation board member and someone doing work in an Eclipse WG presently under the Eclipse WG process, I am happy to discuss specific concerns, but loathe to discuss escaping the process. That is why I am asking for
detail.
kind regards, always stephe
+1 425 785 6102
(he/him) 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.
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.
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) 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.
Hi folks,
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.
--
--
_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org
--
_______________________________________________ open-regulatory-compliance mailing list open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org
|
