On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 23:06 -0600, Jonathan Bryce wrote: > The current difference in implementation is that to be part of the > Core OpenStack Project, a module must receive Board approval to be in > that set. Another intended difference is that the Core OpenStack > Project definition would be used as a means of collecting the projects > for various trademark licensing and interop requirements. That part of > the implementation is still in progress with the ongoing work of the > Board. > > The Bylaws were drafted to take into account the expected direction > that these initiatives were going to move based off the drafting > meetings we had last year, and they included some “forward looking” > provisions like this. Same thing with the FITS testing piece of the > trademark licenses that gives the TC the right to approve a test suite > for usage.
So, to my question of the intent of the difference between "Core OpenStack Project" and Integrated ... You're saying the intent was not about: 1) *Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as "OpenStack Orchestration"? but rather it was intended to be solely about: 2) *Must* a commercial product or service branded "OpenStack" use heat or ceilometer or project X from the integrated release? Am I understand you correctly? If so, I think we have a bunch of work to do to clarify the bylaws ... because I think those of us on the TC side who read the bylaws and tried to divine the intent came to the conclusion it was entirely about (1) and *nothing* to do with (2). Mark. _______________________________________________ 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