Dual/multiple repos and cross-contribution [Motion for Open Repository for CTI Interop Issue Tracking

Duncan,
Very narrowly, just on this question
>
Would it be possible to   have both?
From the OASIS Staff (policy) point of view: yes, it's possible, and
a couple groups are (effectively) doing this, though not in so many
words.  TCs can request as any public GitHub repositories as
they want, of both types.
My summary, possibly subject to correction/clarification
For "Open Source" repos and "TC Repos":
The different opportunities and requirements for participation are actually
substantial, even if, in today's world, few of the technical solutions
created under our open source licensing OR under OASIS common
IPR Modes (e.g., Non-Assert) involve patented or patentable
technology that's declared or otherwise impactful -- arguably,
and with some exceptions and caveats.
I'm copying out a few of the FAQs that were written for OASIS
TC Open Repositories about getting content "from" a repo
of Type-A into a repo of Type-B.   Content that's developed in
one is not automatically candidate for the other (no solution
for auto-sync), but when participants/members think the
licensing of one is commensurable with the licensing of the
other, content can be (to use one phrase) " cross-contributed"
- Robin
FAQs
16. What is the relationship between a TC's Open Repositories and
    its formal specifications?
17. Can a contributor to a TC's Open Repository push a contribution
    to the TC for use in its formal specifications?
18. Can a TC member pull material from one of its TC
    Open Repositories into the TC's formal specifications?
19. If a TC has material such as code snippets in its formal
    specification, may it also place that material in an associated
    related TC Open Repository?
https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#relationToSpecifications
https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#pushingContentToTC
https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#pullingContentFromRepo
https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#shareableCodeComponents
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:01 PM,
< 
>  wrote:  > "we do *not* have unanimous consent for opening ‘a’ repo"  Is it safe to say that there is no objection in principle to the  concepts of having repo, but the issue is which type (github//oasis-open  vs github//oasis-tcs)?
I've been wrestling with a similar issue in OpenC2 with a similar "can't  win" (ie either non-OASIS can't play; or certain OASIS-members can't  play). If we have to break the tie, I would tend towards favoring OASIS  members (ie the github//oasis-tcs solution). Would it be possible to  have both? I think there would be two ways to do this.
Method A:  github//oasis-tcs is the 'main' repo and the 'definitive' repo  github//oasis-open is 'supplemental'
In this scenario, members would contribute to github//oasis-tcs and  non-members would contribute to github//oasis-open. Note both are  world-readable (so both are open wrt readable). Any member so inclined  could copy github//oasis-open info to their own fork and then contribute  it to github//oasis-tcs. I recognize some legal teams might not approve  their employees doing such but I'm assuming since they have the same  opensource licenses and the same contributor agreements that someone  might be able to do it (only takes one). If no one does it then you have  to look in two places which might not be that big a deal if directory  structures and cross links are put in between the two (ie if you go into  the 'non-OASIS-member' subdir it just is a hotlink to the other repo  (and vice versa).
Method B:  same methodology but reverse which one is 'main/definitive'.
I'd favor A over B and I'd really prefer there was just one - but not  obvious to me how "one" can be made to work for everyone.
Duncan Sparrell  sFractal Consulting LLC  iPhone, iTypo, iApologize