cti-interoperability — archive

[Duncan Sparrell]

> "we do *not* have unanimous consent for opening ‘a’ repo" Is it safe to say that there is no objection in principle to the concepts of having repo, but the issue is which type (github//oasis-open vs github//oasis-tcs)? I've been wrestling with a similar issue in OpenC2 with a similar "can't win" (ie either non-OASIS can't play; or certain OASIS-members can't play). If we have to break the tie, I would tend towards favoring OASIS members (ie the github//oasis-tcs solution). Would it be possible to have both? I think there would be two ways to do this. Method A: github//oasis-tcs is the 'main' repo and the 'definitive' repo github//oasis-open is 'supplemental' In this scenario, members would contribute to github//oasis-tcs and non-members would contribute to github//oasis-open. Note both are world-readable (so both are open wrt readable). Any member so inclined could copy github//oasis-open info to their own fork and then contribute it to github//oasis-tcs. I recognize some legal teams might not approve their employees doing such but I'm assuming since they have the same opensource licenses and the same contributor agreements that someone might be able to do it (only takes one). If no one does it then you have to look in two places which might not be that big a deal if directory structures and cross links are put in between the two (ie if you go into the 'non-OASIS-member' subdir it just is a hotlink to the other repo (and vice versa). Method B: same methodology but reverse which one is 'main/definitive'. I'd favor A over B and I'd really prefer there was just one - but not obvious to me how "one" can be made to work for everyone. Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize