Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF
Larry Gritz <l...@...>
On Sep 23, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Sean Looper <sean....@...> wrote:
ASWF is not involved in the design or development per se.
It's *us* who avoids design by committee, if that's what we want.
In the process of being accepted, we (as a community) would need to establish a charter that lays out our procedures. They are happy to accept a benevolent dictator, or a committee, or whatever else we want that would seem to work. We need to decide how to proceed.
To clarify, here are some things ASWF can do for us:
* Be a neutral party to hold assets like the domain, trademarks, etc., as well as encourage usage and contributions by making it a shared industry project rather than having the appearance of "ownership" by one studio.
* Shield us from liability by holding each project in its own LLC, legally distinct from any of us, our companies, or other projects.
* Provide and share some infrastructure and expertise, including some of the painful nuts and bolts related to CI, porting, testing, release engineering.
* Help direct toward this project the engineering contribution obligations of the premier member companies.
* Help coordinate communication with other projects and copies in the ecosystem, and help us get organized if we again fall into some period of disorganization.
It's worth also pointing out that ASWF is not some mysterious council of alien overlords. It literally *is* us, with its governance and technical direction set by the same companies that have been involved in using and building OCIO all along -- Dreamworks, Autodesk, DNeg, Disney, Sony (er, any day now, really), etc.