We will start by mentioning the project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.
recent toolchain breakage following an update from LFIT - affected documentation
3 identified concerns:
inadequate notification of upgrade was provided - how can upgrade notifications be more clearly communicated, and can the community influence the schedule?
concerns that tooling is not under community control - are there tools that can/should be under community control? Is it possible to have shared control?
community involvement in the process needs to be more tightly coupled - European coverage should help, still trying to secure a resource; is there a more interactive trouble resolution process outside of tickets?
Suggestion for Projects to come up with what the optimum state would be with regards to support/infrastructure
limitations regarding legal responsibilities related to infrastructure access and management acknowledged
Discussion of pursuing commercial support in a SaaS context
Size and scope of community needs are significant
Maturity of communities noted - most in this space were new to open source, not much experience originally. Now deep expertise in many areas.
Fd.io notes that their community has taken on support responsibilities they would prefer that someone else manages in order to get the level of stability and access they want.