Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Mark McLoughlin]

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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Mark McLoughlin]

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 09:53 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
> >> If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
> >> then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
> >> and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion
> >> contradicts Thierry's. 
> > 
> > I don't see this contradiction between what Thierry says and what
> > Jonathan says. On the contrary, I see Jonathan's words confirming what
> > Thierry said.
> > 
> > My understanding is that both are saying that since OpenStack
> > Orchestration and Metering are released together with other packages
> > (modules) in *one*, *integrated* release managed by the TC, they can be
> > called 'OpenStack'-something under art. 4.1(b) of the bylaws. My
> > understanding is that Trove will likely be in the same situation as Heat
> > once it graduates out of incubation.
> 
> I'll admit that the language in the bylaws was a bit confusing to me
> (and others on the TC), which is why we submitted this resolution in the
> first place. Both Mark and Jonathan clarified that projects integrated
> in the common OpenStack release ("integrated" projects) can all call
> themselves "OpenStack Blah" without needing to ask permission from the
> BoD. That just makes sense and is consistent with the way we operated in
> the past, so I'm definitely fine with that.
> 
> I think we can go back to ignoring this confusing "Core OpenStack
> project" language and continue using the term "core" to designate the
> subset of integrated projects that you are /required/ to implement to
> call your implementation "an OpenStack cloud".

Hmm, I missed this part of the thread before replying to Mark's earlier
mail.

Basically, we're choosing here an interpretation of the bylaws which
says any project included in the integrated release can automatically
call itself OpenStack Foo.

However, there's clearly an intent here to distinguish between projects
classified as part of the "Core OpenStack Project" and other projects
included in the integrated release.

If the distinction isn't "can call itself OpenStack Foo", then what
exactly is the distinction now?

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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Mark McLoughlin]

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 07:40 +, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
> We need to distinguish between (1) adding the modules to the "Core
> OpenStack Project" which requires a recommendation by the TC and
> approval by the Board and (2) adding the modules to an integrated
> release (including Core OpenStack Project) which uses the OpenStack
> brand.

We already clearly make this distinction. That was the primary
conclusion of the Incubation Update Committee:

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/IncubationUpdate2013

> We don't yet have approval for adding these modules to the Core
> OpenStack Project (Hypothetical 1). However, adding the modules to an
> integrated release (including Core OpenStack Project) using the
> OpenStack brand is permitted (Hypothetical 2).  However, the use of a
> term "Orchestration" with the OpenStack mark, such as OpenStack
> Orchestration needs Board approval.

Yes, that's the TC's reasoning behind recommending to the board that
Heat and Ceilometer be added to the "Core OpenStack Project".

And the TC sees a big distinction between this meaning of "Core
OpenStack Project" and "the set of functionality/APIs/code which must be
included in products licensed to use the OpenStack brand".

The latter meaning of "core" is not defined in or covered by the bylaws
AFAICT.

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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Mark McLoughlin]

Hi Mark,

On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 07:58 -0600, 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.

That's not our understanding. See the parts of the bylaws quoted here:

  
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names

I think it's pretty clear that unless a 'module' (e.g. Heat) is added to
the 'Core OpenStack Project' by the board on the recommendation of the
TC, it can't call itself e.g. OpenStack Orchestration.

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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Rob_Hirschfeld]

Note to self: paddle faster.

From: Boris Renski [mailto:bren...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Thierry Carrez
Cc: openstack@lists.openstack.org Openstack; 

Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes the 
resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack Orchestration" (which I don't 
believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project called Heat" and NOT 
"OpenStack Orchestration"

Am I getting it right?


> *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.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez 
mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote:
Boris Renski wrote:
> None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
> between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
> sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.

Well, no.

"Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.

"The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends that
it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may decide
to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).

And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".

So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and one of
the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far
as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Zane Bitter]

On 14/11/13 18:41, Jonathan Bryce wrote:

To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b) 
(http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/):

"The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not the Core 
OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack trademark except when 
distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."

In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is another way of saying "distributed with the 
integrated release.” Since Heat and Ceilometer are part of the integrated release starting with Havana, as voted on by the 
TC, the projects (a.k.a. "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic name, such as  "OpenStack 
Orchestration," without being added to the "Core" list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not 
distributed as part of the integrated release could not as they don’t meet the exception in the sentence above.


What about modules like Oslo, that are distributed with the integrated 
release? The by-laws go to all the trouble of explicitly creating a 
category for it (Library projects) to keep it out of Core, but you are 
saying that because Oslo is part of the integrated release there is 
effectively no distinction between it and Core. Does that mean that 
anybody building their own service using Oslo (a category that includes 
just about every Related project) can use the OpenStack trademark? That 
seems to be what you are saying.


Your reading seems to skip over the word "when", or rather to treat it 
as if it had the same meaning as "if".


A company providing, say, a standalone Neutron distribution can call it 
OpenStack Networking, because Neutron is Core. By my reading, another 
company providing a standalone Heat distribution could NOT call it 
OpenStack Orchestration, however, because we explicitly created the 
category of 'Integrated' projects to no other effect than to exclude 
Heat and Ceilometer from using the OpenStack trademark. Of course if a 
company distributed both Heat and Neutron then it _could_ call Heat 
OpenStack Orchestration because it is being distributed with Neutron, 
and Neutron is Core.


I'm glad to see that just about everyone recognises that this outcome 
was absurd. I don't believe it was intentional - it was down to a 
combination of folks who felt that "Core" ought to have some meaning in 
plain English in addition to the meaning that is defined in the by-laws 
and folks who erroneously believed that the by-laws require _all_ 
(rather than _any_) Core projects for trademark eligibility.


I'm pleased to see the TC correcting the mistake according to the 
apparent meaning of the by-laws. If the board feels that the by-laws 
don't actually mean what they say, then perhaps they should be amended 
to remove all of the meaningless "distinctions without a difference" - 
if your interpretation is the right one, the only two categories 
required are "Integrated" and "Official". Be careful, though: I'm pretty 
sure that library projects like Oslo are excluded for a good reason.


cheers,
Zane.


To provide some context from the drafting process when this was written, the 
intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly approved by the Board as 
part of the Core OpenStack Project which would be useful for determining 
interop and commercial product and service trademark usage. This is along the 
lines of the “spider” work that has been going on. The exception in the 
sentence quoted above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that 
included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit to be 
developed, released and distributed as part of the total set of OpenStack 
software, but that may not have the universal applicability of a module of the 
Core OpenStack Project that became a required component for commercial 
trademark use.

Jonathan


On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski  wrote:


In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes the resolution for Heat to call itself, 
"OpenStack Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project 
called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"

Am I getting it right?



*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.



On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
Boris Renski wrote:

None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.


Well, no.

"Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.

"The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the byl

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Thierry Carrez]

Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
>> If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
>> then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
>> and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion
>> contradicts Thierry's. 
> 
> I don't see this contradiction between what Thierry says and what
> Jonathan says. On the contrary, I see Jonathan's words confirming what
> Thierry said.
> 
> My understanding is that both are saying that since OpenStack
> Orchestration and Metering are released together with other packages
> (modules) in *one*, *integrated* release managed by the TC, they can be
> called 'OpenStack'-something under art. 4.1(b) of the bylaws. My
> understanding is that Trove will likely be in the same situation as Heat
> once it graduates out of incubation.

I'll admit that the language in the bylaws was a bit confusing to me
(and others on the TC), which is why we submitted this resolution in the
first place. Both Mark and Jonathan clarified that projects integrated
in the common OpenStack release ("integrated" projects) can all call
themselves "OpenStack Blah" without needing to ask permission from the
BoD. That just makes sense and is consistent with the way we operated in
the past, so I'm definitely fine with that.

I think we can go back to ignoring this confusing "Core OpenStack
project" language and continue using the term "core" to designate the
subset of integrated projects that you are /required/ to implement to
call your implementation "an OpenStack cloud".

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Jonathan Bryce]

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.

Jonathan



On Nov 14, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Boris Renski  wrote:

> Just to clear, I have nothing against Heat or Ceilometer calling themselves 
> OpenStack Orchestration and OpenStack Metering respectively. 
> 
> What I am trying to understand is the current difference between core and 
> integrated projects and it doesn't sound like anybody knows. 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Monty Taylor  wrote:
> I believe the part of the thing Jonathan was referencing that the TC is
> talking about is the final line of 4.1(b):
> 
> "The Secretary shall maintain a list of the modules in the Core
> OpenStack Project which shall be posted on the Foundation’s website."
> 
> Which led us to believe that we needed to suggest that the secretary
> update the list of modules so that heat and ceilometer could use the naming.
> 
> However, I believe that Jonathan has clarified that this is not
> necessary and the both of them are already allowed to use that naming
> because they are part of the integrated release. This does not make them
> "Core" - but they do not need to be core in order to accomplish the
> thing the TC was asking about.
> 
> SO - I think everyone's intent is in line, and we needed clarity on the
> actions actually needed.
> 
> On 11/14/2013 12:56 PM, Boris Renski wrote:
> > OK, I am totally confused then.
> >
> > If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
> > then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
> > and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion
> > contradicts Thierry's.
> >
> > Perhaps, we should all just agree that there is no difference until
> > after the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of
> > tests?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Bryce  > > wrote:
> >
> > To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b)
> > (http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/):
> >
> > "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not
> > the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack
> > trademark except when distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."
> >
> > In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is
> > another way of saying "distributed with the integrated release.”
> > Since Heat and Ceilometer are part of the integrated release
> > starting with Havana, as voted on by the TC, the projects (a.k.a.
> > "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic name, such
> > as  "OpenStack Orchestration," without being added to the "Core"
> > list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not distributed as
> > part of the integrated release could not as they don’t meet the
> > exception in the sentence above.
> >
> > To provide some context from the drafting process when this was
> > written, the intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly
> > approved by the Board as part of the Core OpenStack Project which
> > would be useful for determining interop and commercial product and
> > service trademark usage. This is along the lines of the “spider”
> > work that has been going on. The exception in the sentence quoted
> > above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that
> > included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit
> > to be developed, released and distributed as part of the total set
> > of OpenStack software, but that may not have the universal
> > applicability of a module of the Core OpenStack Project that became
> > a required component for commercial trademark use.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski  > > wrote:
> >
> > > In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD
> > passes the resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack
> > Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an
> > integrated project called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
> > >
> > > Am I getting it right?
> > >
> >

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Stefano Maffulli]

On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
> If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
> then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
> and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion
> contradicts Thierry's. 

I don't see this contradiction between what Thierry says and what
Jonathan says. On the contrary, I see Jonathan's words confirming what
Thierry said.

My understanding is that both are saying that since OpenStack
Orchestration and Metering are released together with other packages
(modules) in *one*, *integrated* release managed by the TC, they can be
called 'OpenStack'-something under art. 4.1(b) of the bylaws. My
understanding is that Trove will likely be in the same situation as Heat
once it graduates out of incubation.

> Perhaps, we should all just agree that there is no difference until
> after the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of
> tests? 

I can agree that the term 'core' is overloaded and confusing at this
point :)

My understanding is that "Core" is the spider discussion, integrated is
the list of packages/modules listed on http://www.openstack.org/software/

/stef

-- 
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org

___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Monty Taylor]

I believe the part of the thing Jonathan was referencing that the TC is
talking about is the final line of 4.1(b):

"The Secretary shall maintain a list of the modules in the Core
OpenStack Project which shall be posted on the Foundation’s website."

Which led us to believe that we needed to suggest that the secretary
update the list of modules so that heat and ceilometer could use the naming.

However, I believe that Jonathan has clarified that this is not
necessary and the both of them are already allowed to use that naming
because they are part of the integrated release. This does not make them
"Core" - but they do not need to be core in order to accomplish the
thing the TC was asking about.

SO - I think everyone's intent is in line, and we needed clarity on the
actions actually needed.

On 11/14/2013 12:56 PM, Boris Renski wrote:
> OK, I am totally confused then. 
> 
> If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
> then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
> and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion
> contradicts Thierry's. 
> 
> Perhaps, we should all just agree that there is no difference until
> after the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of
> tests? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Bryce  > wrote:
> 
> To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b)
> (http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/):
> 
> "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not
> the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack
> trademark except when distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."
> 
> In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is
> another way of saying "distributed with the integrated release.”
> Since Heat and Ceilometer are part of the integrated release
> starting with Havana, as voted on by the TC, the projects (a.k.a.
> "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic name, such
> as  "OpenStack Orchestration," without being added to the "Core"
> list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not distributed as
> part of the integrated release could not as they don’t meet the
> exception in the sentence above.
> 
> To provide some context from the drafting process when this was
> written, the intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly
> approved by the Board as part of the Core OpenStack Project which
> would be useful for determining interop and commercial product and
> service trademark usage. This is along the lines of the “spider”
> work that has been going on. The exception in the sentence quoted
> above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that
> included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit
> to be developed, released and distributed as part of the total set
> of OpenStack software, but that may not have the universal
> applicability of a module of the Core OpenStack Project that became
> a required component for commercial trademark use.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski  > wrote:
> 
> > In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD
> passes the resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack
> Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an
> integrated project called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
> >
> > Am I getting it right?
> >
> >
> > > *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.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez
> mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote:
> > Boris Renski wrote:
> > > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the
> difference
> > > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said,
> but it
> > > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.
> >
> > Well, no.
> >
> > "Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
> > every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.
> >
> > "The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
> > projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends
> that
> > it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may
> decide
> > to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).
> >
> > And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".
> 

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Boris Renski]

OK, I am totally confused then.

If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
then we return to the question of current difference between integrated and
core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion contradicts
Thierry's.

Perhaps, we should all just agree that there is no difference until after
the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of tests?




On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Bryce  wrote:

> To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b) (
> http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/):
>
> "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not the
> Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack trademark
> except when distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."
>
> In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is another
> way of saying "distributed with the integrated release.” Since Heat and
> Ceilometer are part of the integrated release starting with Havana, as
> voted on by the TC, the projects (a.k.a. "modules") can be referred to with
> an OpenStack generic name, such as  "OpenStack Orchestration," without
> being added to the "Core" list. Other modules such as Devstack which are
> not distributed as part of the integrated release could not as they don’t
> meet the exception in the sentence above.
>
> To provide some context from the drafting process when this was written,
> the intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly approved by the
> Board as part of the Core OpenStack Project which would be useful for
> determining interop and commercial product and service trademark usage.
> This is along the lines of the “spider” work that has been going on. The
> exception in the sentence quoted above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an
> integrated release that included additional modules that the TC felt had
> the technical merit to be developed, released and distributed as part of
> the total set of OpenStack software, but that may not have the universal
> applicability of a module of the Core OpenStack Project that became a
> required component for commercial trademark use.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski  wrote:
>
> > In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes
> the resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack Orchestration" (which I
> don't believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project called Heat" and
> NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
> >
> > Am I getting it right?
> >
> >
> > > *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.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez 
> wrote:
> > Boris Renski wrote:
> > > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
> > > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
> > > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.
> >
> > Well, no.
> >
> > "Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
> > every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.
> >
> > "The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
> > projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends that
> > it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may decide
> > to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).
> >
> > And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".
> >
> > So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and one of
> > the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far
> > as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.
> >
> > --
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >
> > ___
> > Foundation-board mailing list
> > foundation-bo...@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Boris Renski]

Just to clear, I have nothing against Heat or Ceilometer calling themselves
OpenStack Orchestration and OpenStack Metering respectively.

What I am trying to understand is the current difference between core and
integrated projects and it doesn't sound like anybody knows.


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Monty Taylor  wrote:

> I believe the part of the thing Jonathan was referencing that the TC is
> talking about is the final line of 4.1(b):
>
> "The Secretary shall maintain a list of the modules in the Core
> OpenStack Project which shall be posted on the Foundation’s website."
>
> Which led us to believe that we needed to suggest that the secretary
> update the list of modules so that heat and ceilometer could use the
> naming.
>
> However, I believe that Jonathan has clarified that this is not
> necessary and the both of them are already allowed to use that naming
> because they are part of the integrated release. This does not make them
> "Core" - but they do not need to be core in order to accomplish the
> thing the TC was asking about.
>
> SO - I think everyone's intent is in line, and we needed clarity on the
> actions actually needed.
>
> On 11/14/2013 12:56 PM, Boris Renski wrote:
> > OK, I am totally confused then.
> >
> > If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
> > then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
> > and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion
> > contradicts Thierry's.
> >
> > Perhaps, we should all just agree that there is no difference until
> > after the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of
> > tests?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Bryce  > > wrote:
> >
> > To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b)
> > (http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/
> ):
> >
> > "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not
> > the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack
> > trademark except when distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."
> >
> > In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is
> > another way of saying "distributed with the integrated release.”
> > Since Heat and Ceilometer are part of the integrated release
> > starting with Havana, as voted on by the TC, the projects (a.k.a.
> > "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic name, such
> > as  "OpenStack Orchestration," without being added to the "Core"
> > list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not distributed as
> > part of the integrated release could not as they don’t meet the
> > exception in the sentence above.
> >
> > To provide some context from the drafting process when this was
> > written, the intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly
> > approved by the Board as part of the Core OpenStack Project which
> > would be useful for determining interop and commercial product and
> > service trademark usage. This is along the lines of the “spider”
> > work that has been going on. The exception in the sentence quoted
> > above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that
> > included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit
> > to be developed, released and distributed as part of the total set
> > of OpenStack software, but that may not have the universal
> > applicability of a module of the Core OpenStack Project that became
> > a required component for commercial trademark use.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski  > > wrote:
> >
> > > In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD
> > passes the resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack
> > Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an
> > integrated project called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
> > >
> > > Am I getting it right?
> > >
> > >
> > > > *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.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez
> > mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote:
> > > Boris Renski wrote:
> > > > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the
> > difference
> > > > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said,
> > but it
> > > > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.
> > >
> > > Well, no.
> > >
> > > "Integrated" is the list of p

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Jonathan Bryce]

To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b) 
(http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/):
 
"The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not the Core 
OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack trademark except 
when distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."
 
In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is another way 
of saying "distributed with the integrated release.” Since Heat and Ceilometer 
are part of the integrated release starting with Havana, as voted on by the TC, 
the projects (a.k.a. "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic 
name, such as  "OpenStack Orchestration," without being added to the "Core" 
list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not distributed as part of the 
integrated release could not as they don’t meet the exception in the sentence 
above.

To provide some context from the drafting process when this was written, the 
intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly approved by the Board as 
part of the Core OpenStack Project which would be useful for determining 
interop and commercial product and service trademark usage. This is along the 
lines of the “spider” work that has been going on. The exception in the 
sentence quoted above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that 
included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit to be 
developed, released and distributed as part of the total set of OpenStack 
software, but that may not have the universal applicability of a module of the 
Core OpenStack Project that became a required component for commercial 
trademark use.

Jonathan


On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski  wrote:

> In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes the 
> resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack Orchestration" (which I don't 
> believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project called Heat" and NOT 
> "OpenStack Orchestration" 
> 
> Am I getting it right? 
> 
> 
> > *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.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Boris Renski wrote:
> > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
> > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
> > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.
> 
> Well, no.
> 
> "Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
> every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.
> 
> "The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
> projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends that
> it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may decide
> to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).
> 
> And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".
> 
> So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and one of
> the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far
> as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Boris Renski]

In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes the
resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack Orchestration" (which I
don't believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project called Heat" and
NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"

Am I getting it right?


> *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.


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> Boris Renski wrote:
> > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
> > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
> > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.
>
> Well, no.
>
> "Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
> every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.
>
> "The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
> projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends that
> it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may decide
> to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).
>
> And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".
>
> So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and one of
> the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far
> as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Boris Renski]

None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Troy Toman  wrote:

>
>
> - Troy
>
> > On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Thierry Carrez 
> wrote:
> >
> > Boris Renski wrote:
> >> So if I am interpreting this correctly, we are doing away with the
> >> concept of Core entirely until after the interop work is done?
> >>
> >> Otherwise, I am a bit unclear as to the difference between "integrated"
> >> and "core" at this point?
> >
> > I fear that the term "core" is way too overloaded at this point to be
> > used in any useful context. Like Mark said there are two different
> > trademark concepts, both of which are using the term "core". The first
> > one is:
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > That one is designated as "The Core OpenStack project" in the bylaws, a
> > list maintained by the secretary, recommended by the technical
> > committee, and approved by the BoD. It is what the recent TC resolution
> > was about.
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > This one is the effort around trademark usage and interop, and it's also
> > using the "core" term (as in: "the 'what is core' spider").
> >
> > So I'm not sure we can do away with the concept of core entirely until
> > the interop work is done... but we could certainly stop using that same
> > confusing term for both things.
>
> +1
>
> >
> > --
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Troy Toman]

- Troy

> On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> 
> Boris Renski wrote:
>> So if I am interpreting this correctly, we are doing away with the
>> concept of Core entirely until after the interop work is done? 
>> 
>> Otherwise, I am a bit unclear as to the difference between "integrated"
>> and "core" at this point?
> 
> I fear that the term "core" is way too overloaded at this point to be
> used in any useful context. Like Mark said there are two different
> trademark concepts, both of which are using the term "core". The first
> one is:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> That one is designated as "The Core OpenStack project" in the bylaws, a
> list maintained by the secretary, recommended by the technical
> committee, and approved by the BoD. It is what the recent TC resolution
> was about.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> This one is the effort around trademark usage and interop, and it's also
> using the "core" term (as in: "the 'what is core' spider").
> 
> So I'm not sure we can do away with the concept of core entirely until
> the interop work is done... but we could certainly stop using that same
> confusing term for both things.

+1

> 
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Thierry Carrez]

Boris Renski wrote:
> None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
> between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
> sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point. 

Well, no.

"Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.

"The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends that
it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may decide
to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).

And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".

So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and one of
the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far
as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Thierry Carrez]

Boris Renski wrote:
> So if I am interpreting this correctly, we are doing away with the
> concept of Core entirely until after the interop work is done? 
> 
> Otherwise, I am a bit unclear as to the difference between "integrated"
> and "core" at this point? 

I fear that the term "core" is way too overloaded at this point to be
used in any useful context. Like Mark said there are two different
trademark concepts, both of which are using the term "core". The first
one is:

>> 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.

That one is designated as "The Core OpenStack project" in the bylaws, a
list maintained by the secretary, recommended by the technical
committee, and approved by the BoD. It is what the recent TC resolution
was about.

>> 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.

This one is the effort around trademark usage and interop, and it's also
using the "core" term (as in: "the 'what is core' spider").

So I'm not sure we can do away with the concept of core entirely until
the interop work is done... but we could certainly stop using that same
confusing term for both things.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Monty Taylor]

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  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!
>> 
>> __

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[mark]

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.

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. 




On Nov 14, 2013 7:29 AM, Monty Taylor  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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Monty Taylor]

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!

___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Thierry Carrez]

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.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
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

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

[Joshua McKenty]

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?

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.

--

Joshua McKenty
Chief Technology Officer
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
+1 (650) 242-5683
+1 (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."

On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:42 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:

> The OpenStack Technical Committee ("TC") recently adopted the following
> resolutions:
> 
> * Thierry Carrez was selected as the TC chair for the 6-month Icehouse
> session of the TC.
> 
> * The TC recommends that the Board of Directors approve the addition (by
> the Secretary) of OpenStack Measurements (Ceilometer) and OpenStack
> Orchestration (Heat) to the list of the modules in the "Core OpenStack
> Project" as defined in Bylaws sections 4.1(b), so that they are clearly
> allowed to use "OpenStack" in their names. Please see the complete text
> of the TC resolution at [1].
> 
> [1]
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names
> 
> As a sidenote, on August 20 we decided to start using a git repository
> to track TC reference documents and resolutions. This move was completed
> so anyone can track TC proposed decisions & votes through Gerrit [3] and
> the resulting changes through git.o.o [4].
> 
> [3]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/governance,n,z
> [4] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/log/
> 
> More information on the Technical Committee at:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/TechnicalCommittee
> 
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee
> 
> ___
> 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