This debate is evidence that a discussion in a high-bandwidth forum should have occurred before and pros/cons on alternate approaches discussed before a decision was made.
Suggest that occurs before this thread gets any longer and fills email boxes.
Yours
Allan open to changing my mind
From: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <
cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Tim Hudson <
tjh@cryptsoft.com>
Date: Friday, November 1, 2019 at 1:44 PM
To: Jason Keirstead <
Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Chet Ensign <
chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>, Carol G <
carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <
cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "jory.burson@oasis-open.org" <
jory.burson@oasis-open.org>, Paul Knight <
paul.knight@oasis-open.org>, Scott McGrath
<
scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: Notice of upcoming change to OASIS TC Open Repositories
And with all due respect, Jason you have completely totally missed the point that the organisation's DNS name is and remains
oasis-open.org . That is the beginning and end of the argument.
It also happens to be the actual organisation name if you want to check those details too. The organisation is not "oasis" and never has been. We may use that as shorthand in various ways - but "OASIS OPEN" is the organisation's legal
name - also noted in the Bylaws.
That also by itself should be the beginning and end of the argument too.
If
oasis-open-projects.org is considered confusing compared to
oasis-open.org (which is the logical conclusion from your claim of major confusion) then it should have been completely named differently - and - as it is the newer name then it is the one that should be changed.
This has nothing to do with GitHub itself - the organisations within GitHub should simply match the organisation DNS usage (as they normally do).
You are trying to fix an issue in the wrong place - if the issue is truely one that is causing significant confusion then the oasis-open-projects organisation needs to the changed. That same "confusion" is inherent in the domain names -
and the "open" in oasis-open was never about open source so attempting to redefine an existing established usage isn't sensible.
Tim.
On Fri, 1 Nov. 2019, 8:43 pm Jason Keirstead, <
Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com > wrote:
FWIW - we have gone through this process ourselves internally, and never bothered to update any links, references etc - the Github redirect works flawlessly. All existing clones
& checkouts work flawlessly.
TC's don't *actually* have to do anything. If and when a TC bothers to update any links to use the new name, is up to your own schedule.
IE - I think the concern here is being a bit overblown.
In response to Allen's comment "why doesn't Open Projects change it's location" - that is not the issue here. The reason this change is being looked at is because of the large
confusion between these two things
"OASIS-Open" projects - ie, Github projects under the oasis-open org. These projects just so happen to be TC Open Repos, but that is not the name of the org.
"OASIS Open Projects" - the thing, as an entity.
As you can see - the only solution really is to re-name one of them. It is a lot simpler to re-name a Github organization, than rename an entity that OASIS has spent a year building
and branding.
-
Jason Keirstead
Chief Architect - IBM Security Threat Management
www.ibm.com/security "Would you like me to give you a formula for success? It's quite simple, really. Double your rate of failure."
- Thomas J. Watson