Jean, Thanks for your message. I think that OCCI 1.2 is almost complete, and that the group simply needs to process the public comments received and publish the documents — at least the ones that are ready — as a stimulus to future implementations. Much of what you are proposing would actually be a better match to being done in an implementation group (one or more than one), which would be community groups devoted to working on implementations. In OGF, the work of a working group is done when it completes the documents described in its charter, and implementations are expected to be done elsewhere. The good news is that OGF has done some work behind the scenes that Andre Merzky can tell us about that will be intended to improve the ability for OGF work groups and community groups to connect their work to public settings. This includes (or will soon) the ability to log in to OGF resources using GitHub credentials, as well as other methods, and to publish OGF group repositories and other materials on GitHub as well as other locations. We have also created an OGF organizational pages home on GitHub, and plan to offer this to our groups, many of which already store some of their materials there on an individual basis. I would like to point out that OCCI is well adopted in several production settings, and it will be the responsibilities of those implementers to decide when and how to update their configurations, as OGF does not manage these. We can and I believe should improve the ability for such groups too find and mutually share their work by promoting and encouraging community-based implementation groups and giving them space in the OGF organizational internal and external (e.g., GitHub) community space. As far as further maturing of the standard, anyone is welcome to submit informational, community practice or experimental documents that can describe their experience in individual or particular community settings that can be the basis for further motivation to update this or any other OGF standard (i.e., recommendation or proposed-recommendation track documents). I encourage you or anyone interested in writing such documents to do so. Further information on the OGF document process is described on links available at https://www.ogf.org/documents Beyond this, please feel free to reach out to my own research group and also to the whole list for help with the upcoming Cloud Plugfest next week at the OW@Con’15 and Paris Open Source Summit. Thanks, Alan
On Nov 11, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Jean Parpaillon <jean.parpaillon@free.fr> wrote:
Hi, During last months, we have seen few activity on the OCCI-wg mailist and the release of 1.2 specifications has been postponed many times.
To be honest, the OCCI-wg behaves like either it would be a mature standard (no evolution needed), either a deprecated one. (Un)fortunately it is not the case as there many activity around it, needed and wanted.
I suppose that a first step to arrange this situation would be to have someone in the group officially responsible for leading the discussions, establishing deadlines, and so on.
May we agree on defining a new organization of the OCCI-wg which reflect the really activity of its members ?
Best Regards, -- Jean Parpaillon -- Open Source Consultant OW2 Technology Council Chairman Director @ OW2 Consortium OCCIware Strategic Orientation Committee Chairman Research Engineer @ Inria -- Phone: +33 6 30 10 92 86 im: jean.parpaillon@gmail.com skype: jean.parpaillon linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanparpaillon/en