[Gt-eos] gtk source repo location

[Brian Lin]

Hi all,

I had that same realization about 'open-gtk' in the shower this morning 
-- no wonder I thought it sounded good :).

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'.

If we think a phone conference is necessary, my mornings (UTC-5) are 
free next Wednesday through Friday.

- Brian

On 10/13/2017 12:26 AM, Frank Scheiner wrote:
> Hi Brian, all,
>
> On 10/12/2017 11:13 PM, Brian Lin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> 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.
>
> Can you post these slides on the list or post a link to them if 
> they're public?
>
>  If this hasn't been decided, I suggest creating an open-gtk
>> organization for which we can add EGI, OSG, WLCG, etc. teams.
>
> 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.
>
> [1]: https://www.gtk.org/
>
> 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.
>
> I'd like to propose another name:
>
> Some time ago I created a GitLab group named "gnext" for this ([2]).
>
> [2]: https://gitlab.com/gnext/
>
> Let me explain the ideas behind the name:
>
> * It's short, it's easy to pronounce - at least for central Europeans 
> like me - and it has some meaning in it.
>
> * 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.
>
> [3]: http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/
>
> * 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.
>
> Not sure what you and others think of the name. Don't hesitate to 
> discuss this. :-D
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> [4]: https://lists.globus.org/mailman/listinfo/gt-user
>
>  There also
>> 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.
>
> Yes and I also think a license change for future additions would only 
> complicate things, although I personally prefer GPL licenses.
>
> Cheers,
> Frank
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gt-eos mailing list
> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu
> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.egi.eu/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20171013/aa1843a1/attachment.html>