<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
I had that same realization about 'open-gtk' in the shower this
morning -- no wonder I thought it sounded good :).<br>
<br>
Regarding the GitHub account, I don't think we'll want to create a
new one per se because we would have to worry about ownership and
access to that specific account. This is where the GitHub
organizations come in to play because it allows a repository to have
multiple owners (Oliver, the features/requirements you listed are
orthogonal to GitHub orgs). GitHub orgs and users do share a
namespace, though, so we wouldn't be able to use 'gnext'. I like
JP's suggestion of 'gtnext'.<br>
<br>
If we think a phone conference is necessary, my mornings (UTC-5) are
free next Wednesday through Friday.<br>
<br>
- Brian<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/13/2017 12:26 AM, Frank Scheiner
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0a24362e-1910-48bc-c226-0786e55528a9@hlrs.de">Hi Brian,
all,
<br>
<br>
On 10/12/2017 11:13 PM, Brian Lin wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi all,
<br>
<br>
Apologies if this has been decided on already but has there been
a decision made on the location of the post-EOL gtk source? I
saw some slides from a GDB meeting but it wasn't clear if it
resulted in a final choice.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Can you post these slides on the list or post a link to them if
they're public?
<br>
<br>
If this hasn't been decided, I suggest creating an open-gtk
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">organization for which we can add EGI,
OSG, WLCG, etc. teams.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The issue with "gtk" is that there's already a well-known toolkit
([1]) available that uses that name and adding "open" to it might
even more confuse people which aren't familiar with the Globus
Toolkit.
<br>
<br>
[1]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.gtk.org/">https://www.gtk.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
And actually the Globus Toolkit is already open in the sense of
open source code, but you're right that this will change with what
Globus plans for the future with their "Globus Community License",
if they still want to call their code base Globus Toolkit.
<br>
<br>
I'd like to propose another name:
<br>
<br>
Some time ago I created a GitLab group named "gnext" for this
([2]).
<br>
<br>
[2]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gitlab.com/gnext/">https://gitlab.com/gnext/</a>
<br>
<br>
Let me explain the ideas behind the name:
<br>
<br>
* It's short, it's easy to pronounce - at least for central
Europeans like me - and it has some meaning in it.
<br>
<br>
* It starts with a "g" which relates to "Globus (Toolkit)" but
doesn't use the "Globus" trademark (btw "Globus Toolkit" and
"Globus alliance" are also trademarks, see e.g. [3] at the
bottom). I have some preference to use the letter "g" for my
Globus related tools (e.g. gtransfer, gsatellite). So I'm a little
biased here, of course.
<br>
<br>
[3]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/">http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/</a>
<br>
<br>
* The "next" should make clear that it's the next thing after the
Globus Toolkit or simply the future of the Globus Toolkit (in its
current form). People should instantly recognize it as the future
source of the Globus Toolkit after Globus abandoned it.
<br>
<br>
Not sure what you and others think of the name. Don't hesitate to
discuss this. :-D
<br>
<br>
Sadly the name is already taken by an assumed empty GitHub
account, but we could still ask GitHub to "free up" that account
for use by us.
<br>
<br>
GitLab and/or GitHub also offer wikis and issue tracking, the
latter could also be used to support users, in addition to a
mailing list like the current gt-user list ([4]), which will most
likely vanish in the future.
<br>
<br>
[4]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.globus.org/mailman/listinfo/gt-user">https://lists.globus.org/mailman/listinfo/gt-user</a>
<br>
<br>
There also
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">seemed to be a question about licenses --
from the OSG point of view, I believe the Apache 2.0 license
should suffice as that's what we use for our own software.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes and I also think a license change for future additions would
only complicate things, although I personally prefer GPL licenses.
<br>
<br>
Cheers,
<br>
Frank
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gt-eos mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gt-eos@mailman.egi.eu">Gt-eos@mailman.egi.eu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos">http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>