[Gt-eos] gtk source repo location
Mischa Salle
msalle at nikhef.nl
Sun Oct 15 20:02:57 CEST 2017
Dear all,
a few remarks:
1) can't we persuade Globus to create a github organization and have
them move the source code repository there?
In any case the github organization concept is quite suitable for
something distributed like this where we have supporters and developers
in many different infrastructures.
I think it would be great if we could persuade Globus to set it up and
have us added, since it would also preserve branches and history there,
but probably Globus would not like this.
2) I think including Grid in the name is not such a good idea, mostly
because of the reasons Dave mentions, also because the usage goes beyond
what we call grid (even though the G in GSI nowadays stands for Grid and
it's of course called gridftp). In any case I personally would prefer if
the name somewhere includes gt.
Of course we can translate globus into sphere: e.g. open sphere toolkit
or perhaps Libre-Sphere-Devkit (-;
Best wishes,
Mischa
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 05:19:26AM +0000, david.kelsey at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> Dear Brian,
>
>
> * Looking at domain name availability, I would lean toward:
> * - "grid community forum" / gridcf: the group of people, name of docker hub / github org / web domain.
>
> There was and still is a body called OGF (which used to stand for Open Grid Forum) with previous incarnations of GGF (Global Grid Forum) and before that just GF (Grid Forum). A “grid community forum” may be confused with this.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr David Kelsey
> Particle Physics Department
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Chilton, DIDCOT, OX11 0QX, UK
>
> e-mail: david.kelsey at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.kelsey at stfc.ac.uk>
> Tel: [+44](0)1235 445746 (direct)
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> From: Gt-eos <gt-eos-bounces at mailman.egi.eu> on behalf of Brian Bockelman <bbockelm at cse.unl.edu>
> Reply-To: End of Support of Globus Toolkit <gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu>
> Date: Friday, 13 October 2017 at 16:25
> To: End of Support of Globus Toolkit <gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu>
> Subject: Re: [Gt-eos] gtk source repo location
>
> At the risk of bikeshedding...
>
> Here's the important parts for me:
> - Community ownership
> - Open / open source
> - Grid, not Globus (avoids trademarks!!)
> - Toolkit
>
> So, from that:
> - "community grid toolkit" / cgt /
> - "open grid toolkit" / ogt / opengt
> - "grid community support forum" or "grid software forum" / gridsf
> - "grid community forum" / gridcf
>
> I tried a few different things incorporating 'legacy', but I didn't like any (and it seems to downtrodden anyway...).
>
> Looking at domain name availability, I would lean toward:
> - "grid community forum" / gridcf: the group of people, name of docker hub / github org / web domain.
> - "community grid toolkit" / cgt: the name for the piece of software.
>
> On the other sub-thread: I agree that changing the license from the current (Apache 2.0) sounds like a massive headache and would suggest continuing as-is.
>
> Brian
>
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Navarro, JP <navarro at mcs.anl.gov<mailto:navarro at mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
> Considering that Globus as a project has a new/next set of cloud based technologies, I recommend a more precise name derived from Globus Toolkit “gt" and not just Globus “g", for example “gtnext” or “cgt” (Community Globus Toolkit).
> JP Navarro
> XSEDE Cyber-infrastructure Integration Team
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Frank Scheiner <scheiner at hlrs.de<mailto:scheiner at hlrs.de>> 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
> --
> Frank Scheiner
> High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS)
> Department Project User Management & Accounting
> Email: scheiner at hlrs.de<mailto:scheiner at hlrs.de>
> Phone: +49 711 685 68039
> _______________________________________________
> Gt-eos mailing list
> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu<mailto:Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu>
> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos
> _______________________________________________
> Gt-eos mailing list
> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu<mailto:Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu>
> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gt-eos mailing list
> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu<mailto:Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu>
> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gt-eos mailing list
> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu
> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos
--
Nikhef Room H155
Science Park 105 Tel. +31-20-592 5102
1098 XG Amsterdam Fax +31-20-592 5155
The Netherlands Email msalle at nikhef.nl
__ .. ... _._. .... ._ ... ._ ._.. ._.. .._..
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3402 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.egi.eu/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20171015/cc5e9ef0/attachment.p7s>
More information about the discuss
mailing list