|
| 1 | +# AAIF Forum Posting Packet |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Purpose |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +This packet is the human-facing posting aid for asking AAIF/Linux Foundation-adjacent communities where the Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile is useful. |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +It is not an endorsement request. It is not a project proposal. It is not a request for Agentic AI Foundation or Linux Foundation status. |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +Use this packet when Karunanidhi wants to post one concise, technical ask in an AAIF-adjacent venue without sounding like promotion or asking reviewers to inspect the whole repository. |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +## Current Public Anchors Checked |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +- AAIF home: https://aaif.io/ |
| 14 | +- AAIF projects page: https://aaif.io/projects/ |
| 15 | +- AAIF project proposals repository: https://github.com/aaif/project-proposals |
| 16 | +- AAIF project proposal issue form: https://github.com/aaif/project-proposals/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/project-proposal.yml |
| 17 | +- AAIF project lifecycle policy: https://github.com/aaif/project-proposals/blob/main/governance/project-lifecycle-policy.md |
| 18 | +- AAIF project submission overview: https://aaif.io/blog/how-to-submit-your-project-to-the-aaif/ |
| 19 | +- AGENTS.md project page: https://aaif.io/projects/agents-md/ |
| 20 | +- agentgateway announcement: https://aaif.io/blog/agentgateway-joins-aaif-as-an-open-gateway-for-agentic-ai-infrastructure/ |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +## Recommended First Venue |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Use a general AAIF/community venue or AGENTS.md-adjacent discussion path before using the formal project proposal repository. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +Do not submit to `aaif/project-proposals` yet. The current evidence is public-review ready and proposal-preflight ready, but not Growth-stage, Impact-stage, or working-group proposal ready. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +Good first route: |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +1. Ask one narrow routing question. |
| 31 | +2. Link the public review packet first. |
| 32 | +3. Mention the 16-repository testbed only as evidence, not as a pitch. |
| 33 | +4. Ask for one sentence of feedback. |
| 34 | +5. Do not tag maintainers unless they are already participating. |
| 35 | +6. Record any public response in the route signal ledger or ecosystem contribution ledger. |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +## Copy-Ready Short Post |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +```text |
| 40 | +I maintain an independent OSS Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile for repositories that need clearer evidence around AGENTS.md instructions, tool/action boundaries, human approval, identity assumptions, audit events, OSS fallbacks, security posture, and reproducible validation. |
| 41 | +
|
| 42 | +I am not asking for endorsement, foundation status, or a project proposal review. |
| 43 | +
|
| 44 | +Review entry point: |
| 45 | +https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/PUBLIC_REVIEW_PACKET.md |
| 46 | +
|
| 47 | +The profile is tested against 16 public repo-local boundary examples, but the narrow question is this: |
| 48 | +
|
| 49 | +Does this evidence shape belong closer to AGENTS.md examples, MCP/tool readiness guidance, A2A/interoperability evidence, agentgateway governance use cases, Goose/developer-workflow setup evidence, or should it remain an independent profile? |
| 50 | +
|
| 51 | +One sentence is useful. If it is too heavy, duplicative, or missing an existing AAIF route, that correction is the signal I need. |
| 52 | +``` |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +## Copy-Ready One-Sentence Ask |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +```text |
| 57 | +Could someone leave one route signal on whether this profile is useful beside AGENTS.md, MCP/tool readiness, A2A/interoperability, agentgateway governance, Goose/developer workflow, or whether it should stay independent? |
| 58 | +``` |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +## Copy-Ready Reply If Someone Asks About Proposal Status |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +```text |
| 63 | +This is not a formal AAIF proposal today. The public preflight says the missing evidence is external adoption, diverse maintainers, accepted upstream contribution, and routing feedback. I am using public review to learn whether the evidence shape is useful before any proposal path is considered. |
| 64 | +``` |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +## Links To Include |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +Use one primary link and at most two support links in the first post. |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +Primary: |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +- Public review packet: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/PUBLIC_REVIEW_PACKET.md |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +Support links: |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +- Docs portal: https://kmishra1204.github.io/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/ |
| 77 | +- Pinned one-signal issue: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/7 |
| 78 | +- Focused proposal-readiness review: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/4 |
| 79 | +- Public routing discussion: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/discussions/3 |
| 80 | +- Current release: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/releases/latest |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +## Human Rhythm |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +- Post once. |
| 85 | +- Do not cross-post the same text into multiple repositories. |
| 86 | +- Wait for a response before following up. |
| 87 | +- If a reviewer says the packet is too broad, ask which one section to delete or split. |
| 88 | +- If a reviewer suggests a better route, record it and adjust the public review packet before asking again. |
| 89 | +- If no response arrives, do not escalate. Improve examples and wait for a better venue. |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +## Response Classification |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +Record public responses using: |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +- route-signal ledger: `docs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_LEDGER.md` |
| 96 | +- route-signal response protocol: `docs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_RESPONSE_PROTOCOL.md` |
| 97 | +- ecosystem contribution ledger: `docs/ECOSYSTEM_CONTRIBUTION_LEDGER.md` |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +Count only: |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +- public maintainer comments |
| 102 | +- public reviewer comments |
| 103 | +- explicit external adoption-trial opt-ins |
| 104 | +- accepted upstream PRs |
| 105 | +- explicit routing guidance toward AGENTS.md, MCP, A2A/interoperability, agentgateway, Goose, AAIF working groups, or independent profile maturity |
| 106 | + |
| 107 | +Do not count: |
| 108 | + |
| 109 | +- private messages |
| 110 | +- likes, stars, forks, or follows |
| 111 | +- silence |
| 112 | +- open PRs as accepted contribution |
| 113 | +- self-authored claims |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +## Anti-Claims |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +Do not imply: |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +- AAIF endorsement |
| 120 | +- Linux Foundation endorsement |
| 121 | +- accepted project status |
| 122 | +- working-group status |
| 123 | +- Technical Committee sponsorship |
| 124 | +- production-readiness certification |
| 125 | +- external adoption |
| 126 | +- external reviewer approval |
| 127 | +- contributor-list credit |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +The correct current posture is public review and proof gathering until an external reviewer, adopter, maintainer, upstream merge, or AAIF/LF-adjacent routing signal exists. |
0 commit comments