On 11/14/2013 08:58 AM, m...@openstack.org wrote: > Yes. > > Also, there are two trademark concepts being mixed here. > > 1) *Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as > "OpenStack Orchestration"? Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a > done deal and we are already doing it in practice. And its covered > under the bylaws once they are included in the integrated release by > TC vote. There is no need for further action. > > 2) *Must* a commercial product or service branded "OpenStack" use > heat or ceilometer or project X from the integrated release? This is > the work underway. > > If the TC resolution was concerning #1 then I don't believe it was > necessary. If #2, there is work being done on that but its definitely > worth discussing in various forums.
The TC resolution is absolutely concerning #1. Basically, the bylaws section has a mention of the secretary maintaining a list of projects - so I think what we're doing is formally informing the board so that the secretary can update the list. > One thing to note is that #1 is in a broader non commercial context > such as project teams communicating about their work, and #2 is about > commercial branding of products and services which fall under > trademark licenses signed by corporations branding their products > "OpenStack". They are not the same thing but are often conflated > accidentally. That said, if they are too divergent in practice it is > likely to be confusing for the market as a whole. > > I have plenty of opinions on where we should be headed on all of > these topics but will save those for another post. This one is aimed > at sharing some relevant facts. > Thanks Mark! I believe you said what I was trying to communicate in a much clearer and less confrontational manner. Can you just talk for me? > > On Nov 14, 2013 7:29 AM, Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/14/2013 03:24 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> Joshua McKenty wrote: >>>> Thierry, I'll make sure this motion lands on the agenda for >>>> discussion at the next board meeting. I don't see a gerritt >>>> entry for that motion, though - where is the vote recorded? >>> >>> The review is at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55375/ >>> >>> The votes also appear on the git notes for the commit: >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/commit/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names?id=493e7c65cfbd3bd75409c84d089f57f4aab88da4 >>> >>> >>> (TC members vote using +2/-2, everyone else can voice their >>> opinion by voting +1/-1) >>> >>>> Since I have grave concerns about the use of the term OpenStack >>>> in relationship to either of these projects (in either of the >>>> two forms of the term "core" that you've referenced), I imagine >>>> it will be, as usual, a lively debate. >>> >>> Agreed :) I personally think that this resolution reflects the >>> current usage on the technical side: we traditionally start >>> calling projects "OpenStack X" once they are integrated (for >>> example, we've been calling Heat "OpenStack Orchestration" in the >>> Havana release announcement). So it is the TC recommendation that >>> this usage is actually allowed. >>> >>> In all cases clarification for that grey area is definitely >>> desirable... for the current projects and to set expectations >>> right for the ones coming up. >> >> I look forward to the lively debate! >> >> I think it's important to frame a specific part of it. Heat and >> Ceilometer are part of OpenStack. That part has happened, it's a >> fait acompli. The TC decided that as part of the community-based >> meritocracy governance, which is how questions of what goes in the >> software are decided. Contributions to the projects convey ATC >> status and qualify contributors to vote on TC elections. They get >> summit tracks. They are considered available to be depended on by >> other OpenStack projects. We shipped them in the release. >> >> I think the board attempting to say that they are not, in fact, a >> part of OpenStack would be a vast overstepping of boundaries. >> Anyone on the board who is unhappy with the TC's decisions on that >> matter is welcome to join the decision making process - it's open >> to everyone, and we're pretty friendly. But we never have and as >> long as I can help it never will have a technical decision made by >> our ATCs overridden by folks on the business side. >> >> Now, whether or not use by people of the OpenStack mark should >> require either project is the basis of the current work by the >> interop committee. Even if other parts of OpenStack develop >> hard-depends on heat and ceilometer existing, that does not mean >> that their APIs have to be in the keystone service catalog, so it's >> completely within the board's domain to decide that a cloud that >> does not provide a heat endpoint can still call itself an openstack >> cloud - and I THOROUGHLY look forward to that debate! >> >> _______________________________________________ Foundation-board >> mailing list foundation-bo...@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board >> > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
