Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On 10 June 2014 17:53, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in your testing. That's *exactly* what certification means. I disagree. I think the word has substantially more connotations than simply this has been tested. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html Ok, so I think you have a high opinion of certification programs in general than my experiences have led me to expect, but I'm starting to see your point. snip Since cinder, and therefore cinder-core, is going to get the blame, I feel we should try to maintain some degree of control over the claims. I'm starting to see where you're coming from, but I fear this certification thing will make it even worse. Right now you can easily shrug off any responsibility for the quality of a third party driver or an untested in-tree driver. Sure, some people may have unreasonable expectations about such things, but you can't stop people being idiots. You can better communicate expectations, though, and that's excellent. But as soon as you certify that driver cinder-core takes on a responsibility that I would think is unreasonable even if the driver was tested. But you said it's certified! Is cinder-core really ready to take on responsibility for every issue users see with certified drivers and downstream OpenStack products? I think we de facto have a lot of that responsibility, whether we like it or not. You might be right about the work certification making it worse, I don't think it does, but at least I'm managed to explain my position clearly and I think it has been understood. If it's an out-of-tree driver then we say talk to your vendor. If it's an in-tree driver, those actively maintaining the driver provide best effort community support like anything else. If it's an in-tree driver and isn't being actively maintained, and best effort community support isn't being provided, then we need a way to communicate that unmaintained status. The level of testing it receives is what we currently see as the most important aspect, but it's not the only aspect. In cinder, I expect a driver removal patch to be the communication method. I think that view (with varying degrees of communication, carrot and stick before hand to get a better resolution if possible) is pretty much agreed by most of cinder core. Mark. Thanks for your time and repeated replies, I think we are now both aware of what the other person is saying and why, which is the point I wanted to get to. It seems like the weight of opinion is against me, so I'll go quiet on the subject... it is in the end a subjective matter. Thanks to Anita for opening the discussion. -- Duncan Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@dreamhost.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in your testing. That's *exactly* what certification means. I disagree. I think the word has substantially more connotations than simply this has been tested. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html I agree with Mark (and Anita's original rationale) that the certified term conveys a level of guarantee we, as an open source project, can't really back. Using softer terminology (tested, CI tested...) is therefore preferable. I also don't buy the argument that others would abuse that terminology if we didn't occupy it ourselves. The only body that could efficiently certify would be the Board of Directors of the OpenStack Foundation, setting up some official certification program backed with the trademark usage. Anyone else would just certify under their own, independent, non-OpenStack program. I don't think us using that terminology would prevent them from doing that anyway. As long as the board makes sure the trademark is not abused in such 3rd-party certification programs, I think we are ok... -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) +1 Doug ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Thanks everybody for the feedback on this, I appreciate it. Like I said initially, I don't have much of a stake in this but there were folks that did so I wanted to give everyone a chance to discuss here publicly on the ML. Whether I agree with the opinions stated in this thread or not (and for a number of them I really don't) doesn't matter. Maybe since what we're talking about is CI Tested maybe we should just call it that and be done. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in your testing. That's *exactly* what certification means. I disagree. I think the word has substantially more connotations than simply this has been tested. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html I agree with Mark (and Anita's original rationale) that the certified term conveys a level of guarantee we, as an open source project, can't really back. Using softer terminology (tested, CI tested...) is therefore preferable. I also don't buy the argument that others would abuse that terminology if we didn't occupy it ourselves. The only body that could efficiently certify would be the Board of Directors of the OpenStack Foundation, setting up some official certification program backed with the trademark usage. Anyone else would just certify under their own, independent, non-OpenStack program. I don't think us using that terminology would prevent them from doing that anyway. As long as the board makes sure the trademark is not abused in such 3rd-party certification programs, I think we are ok... -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in your testing. That's *exactly* what certification means. I disagree. I think the word has substantially more connotations than simply this has been tested. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html I agree with Mark (and Anita's original rationale) that the certified term conveys a level of guarantee we, as an open source project, can't really back. Using softer terminology (tested, CI tested...) is therefore preferable. I also don't buy the argument that others would abuse that terminology if we didn't occupy it ourselves. The only body that could efficiently certify would be the Board of Directors of the OpenStack Foundation, setting up some official certification program backed with the trademark usage. Anyone else would just certify under their own, independent, non-OpenStack program. I don't think us using that terminology would prevent them from doing that anyway. As long as the board makes sure the trademark is not abused in such 3rd-party certification programs, I think we are ok... -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) +1 Doug ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 20:14 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options: 1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the certification to the project level. 2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of Vendor-specific Drivers. Hi Ramy, Thanks for these constructive suggestions. The second option is certainly a very direct and specific reflection of what is actually involved in getting the Cinder project's imprimatur. I do like tested. I'd like to understand what the foundation is planning for certification as well, to know how big of an issue this really is. Even if they aren't going to certify drivers, I have heard discussions around training and possibly other areas so I would hate for us to introduce confusion by having different uses of that term in similar contexts. Mark, do you know who is working on that within the board or foundation? http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/05/17/may-11-openstack-foundation-board-meeting/ Boris Renski raised the possibility of the Foundation attaching the trademark to a verified, certified or tested status for drivers. It wasn't discussed at length because board members hadn't been briefed in advance, but I think it's safe to say there was a knee-jerk negative reaction from a number of members. This is in the context of the DriverLog report: http://stackalytics.com/report/driverlog http://www.mirantis.com/blog/cloud-drivers-openstack-driverlog-part-1-solving-driver-problem/ http://www.mirantis.com/blog/openstack-will-open-source-vendor-certifications/ AIUI the CI tested phrase was chosen in DriverLog to avoid the controversial area Boris describes in the last link above. I think that makes sense. Claiming this CI testing replaces more traditional certification programs is a sure way to bog potentially useful collaboration down in vendor politics. Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something I'm really keen on, and why I think the word certification is best avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve. Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On 10 June 2014 09:33, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something I'm really keen on, and why I think the word certification is best avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve. Avoiding those sorts of politics - 'XXX says it is a certified config, it doesn't work, cinder is junk' - is why I'd rather the cinder core team had a certification program, at least we've some control then and *other* people can't impose their idea of certification on us. I think politics happens, whether you will it or not, so a far more sensible stance is to play it out in advance. -- Duncan Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On 06/10/2014 04:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 20:14 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options: 1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the certification to the project level. 2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of Vendor-specific Drivers. Hi Ramy, Thanks for these constructive suggestions. The second option is certainly a very direct and specific reflection of what is actually involved in getting the Cinder project's imprimatur. I do like tested. I'd like to understand what the foundation is planning for certification as well, to know how big of an issue this really is. Even if they aren't going to certify drivers, I have heard discussions around training and possibly other areas so I would hate for us to introduce confusion by having different uses of that term in similar contexts. Mark, do you know who is working on that within the board or foundation? http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/05/17/may-11-openstack-foundation-board-meeting/ Boris Renski raised the possibility of the Foundation attaching the trademark to a verified, certified or tested status for drivers. It wasn't discussed at length because board members hadn't been briefed in advance, but I think it's safe to say there was a knee-jerk negative reaction from a number of members. This is in the context of the DriverLog report: http://stackalytics.com/report/driverlog http://www.mirantis.com/blog/cloud-drivers-openstack-driverlog-part-1-solving-driver-problem/ http://www.mirantis.com/blog/openstack-will-open-source-vendor-certifications/ AIUI the CI tested phrase was chosen in DriverLog to avoid the controversial area Boris describes in the last link above. I think that makes sense. Claiming this CI testing replaces more traditional certification programs is a sure way to bog potentially useful collaboration down in vendor politics. Actually FWIW the DriverLog is not posting accurate information, I came upon two instances yesterday where I found the information questionable at best. I know I questioned it. Kyle and I have agreed to not rely on the DriverLog information as it currently stands as a way of assessing the fitness of third party CI systems. I'll add some footnotes for those who want more details. [%%], [++], [] Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something I'm really keen on, and why I think the word certification is best avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve. Mark. I agree with Mark, everytime we try to 'abstract' away from logs and put an new interface on it, the focus moves to the interface and folks stop paying attention to logs. We archive and have links to artifacts for a reason and I think we need to encourage and support people to access these artifacts and draw their own conclusions, which is in keeping with our license. Copy/pasting Mark here: Also AIUI certification implies some level of warranty or guarantee, which goes against the pretty clear language WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND in our license :) [**] Thanks, Anita. Anita's footnotes: [%%] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-neutron/%23openstack-neutron.2014-06-09.log timestamp 2014-06-09T20:09:56 and timestamp 2014-06-09T20:11:24 [++] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2014/networking.2014-06-09-21.01.log.html timestamp 21:49:47 [] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/037064.html [**] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 14:06 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 10 June 2014 09:33, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something I'm really keen on, and why I think the word certification is best avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve. Avoiding those sorts of politics - 'XXX says it is a certified config, it doesn't work, cinder is junk' - is why I'd rather the cinder core team had a certification program, at least we've some control then and *other* people can't impose their idea of certification on us. I think politics happens, whether you will it or not, so a far more sensible stance is to play it out in advance. Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. I don't know what you mean be others imposing their idea of certification. Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in your testing. That's *exactly* what certification means. I don't know what you mean be others imposing their idea of certification. I mean that if some company or vendor starts claiming 'Product X is certified for use with cinder', that is bad for the cinder core team, since we didn't define what got tested or to what degree. Whether we like it or not, when something doesn't work in cinder, it is rare for people to blame the storage vendor in their complaints. 'Cinder is broken' is what we hear (and I've heard it, even though what they meant is 'my storage vendor hasn't tested or updated their driver in two releases', that isn't what they /said/). Since cinder, and therefore cinder-core, is going to get the blame, I feel we should try to maintain some degree of control over the claims. If we run our own minimal certification program, which is what we've started doing (started with a script which did a test run and tried to require vendors to run it, that didn't work out well so we're now requiring CI integration instead), then we at least have the option of saying 'You're running an non-certified product, go talk to your vendor' when dealing with the cases we have no control over. Vendors that don't follow the CI cert requirements eventually get their driver removed, that simple. -- Duncan Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On 06/10/2014 10:09 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in your testing. That's *exactly* what certification means. I think maybe the issue people are having with the word certification is that the way it's frequently used in the industry also implies a certain level of support that we as a community can't/won't provide. To me it's a pretty strong word and I can understand the concern that users might read more into it than we intend. I don't know what you mean be others imposing their idea of certification. I mean that if some company or vendor starts claiming 'Product X is certified for use with cinder', that is bad for the cinder core team, since we didn't define what got tested or to what degree. I wonder if they can even legally do that, but assuming they can what's to stop them from claiming whatever crazy thing they want to, even if there is a certified set of Cinder drivers? No matter what term we use to describe our testing process, someone is going to come up with something that sounds similar but has no real meaning from our perspective. If we certify drivers, someone else will verify or validate or whatever. Without a legal stick to use for that situation I don't see that we can really do much about the problem, other than to tell people they need to talk to the company making the claims if they're having problems. Whether we like it or not, when something doesn't work in cinder, it is rare for people to blame the storage vendor in their complaints. 'Cinder is broken' is what we hear (and I've heard it, even though what they meant is 'my storage vendor hasn't tested or updated their driver in two releases', that isn't what they /said/). Since cinder, and therefore cinder-core, is going to get the blame, I feel we should try to maintain some degree of control over the claims. If we run our own minimal certification program, which is what we've started doing (started with a script which did a test run and tried to require vendors to run it, that didn't work out well so we're now requiring CI integration instead), then we at least have the option of saying 'You're running an non-certified product, go talk to your vendor' when dealing with the cases we have no control over. Vendors that don't follow the CI cert requirements eventually get their driver removed, that simple. How would You're using an untested product, go talk to your vendor not accomplish the same thing? -Ben ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Exposing which configurations are actively tested is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this certification is necessary to achieve your goals. What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in your testing. That's *exactly* what certification means. I disagree. I think the word has substantially more connotations than simply this has been tested. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html I don't know what you mean be others imposing their idea of certification. I mean that if some company or vendor starts claiming 'Product X is certified for use with cinder', On what basis would any vendor claim such certification? that is bad for the cinder core team, since we didn't define what got tested or to what degree. That sounds like you mean Storage technology X is certified for use with Vendor Y OpenStack?. i.e. that Vendor Y has certified the driver for use with their version if OpenStack but the Cinder team has no influence over what that means in practice? Whether we like it or not, when something doesn't work in cinder, it is rare for people to blame the storage vendor in their complaints. 'Cinder is broken' is what we hear (and I've heard it, even though what they meant is 'my storage vendor hasn't tested or updated their driver in two releases', that isn't what they /said/). Presumably people are complaining about that driver not working with some specific downstream version of OpenStack, right? Not e.g. stable/icehouse devstack or something? i.e. even aside from the driver, we're already talking about something we as an upstream project don't control the quality of. Since cinder, and therefore cinder-core, is going to get the blame, I feel we should try to maintain some degree of control over the claims. I'm starting to see where you're coming from, but I fear this certification thing will make it even worse. Right now you can easily shrug off any responsibility for the quality of a third party driver or an untested in-tree driver. Sure, some people may have unreasonable expectations about such things, but you can't stop people being idiots. You can better communicate expectations, though, and that's excellent. But as soon as you certify that driver cinder-core takes on a responsibility that I would think is unreasonable even if the driver was tested. But you said it's certified! Is cinder-core really ready to take on responsibility for every issue users see with certified drivers and downstream OpenStack products? If we run our own minimal certification program, which is what we've started doing (started with a script which did a test run and tried to require vendors to run it, that didn't work out well so we're now requiring CI integration instead), then we at least have the option of saying 'You're running an non-certified product, go talk to your vendor' when dealing with the cases we have no control over. Vendors that don't follow the CI cert requirements eventually get their driver removed, that simple. What about issues with a certified driver? Don't talk to the vendor, talk to us instead? If it's an out-of-tree driver then we say talk to your vendor. If it's an in-tree driver, those actively maintaining the driver provide best effort community support like anything else. If it's an in-tree driver and isn't being actively maintained, and best effort community support isn't being provided, then we need a way to communicate that unmaintained status. The level of testing it receives is what we currently see as the most important aspect, but it's not the only aspect. If the user is actually using a distro or other downstream product rather than pure upstream, it's completely normal for upstream to say talk to your distro maintainers or product vendor. Upstream projects can only provide limited support for even motivated and clueful users, particularly when those users are actually using downstream variants of the project. It certainly makes sense to clarify that, but a certification program will actually raise the expectations users have about the level of support upstream will provide. Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is certified and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word certificate. This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. 2. to testify to or vouch for in writing: The medical examiner will certify his findings to the court. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. 4. to guarantee (a check) by writing on its face that the account against which it is drawn has sufficient funds to pay it. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certify The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing the attesting. I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word certificate and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. Thank you for your participation, Anita. Hi Anita, Just a note on cross-posting to both the os-dev and os-tc lists. Anyone not on the TC who will hits reply-all is likely to see their post be rejected by the TC list moderator, but go through to the more open dev list. As a result, the thread diverges (as we saw with the recent election stats/turnout thread). Also, moderation rejects are an unpleasant user experience. So if a post is intended to reach out for input from the wider dev community, it's better to post *only* to the -dev list, or vice versa if you want to interact with a narrower audience. Thanks, Eoghan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On 6 June 2014 18:29, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is certified and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word certificate. This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. So the cinder team are attesting that a set of tests have been run against a driver: a certified driver. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. We (the cinder) team) are guaranteeing that the driver has been tested, in at least one configuration, and found to pass all of the tempest tests. This is a far better state than we were at 6 months ago, where many drivers didn't even pass a smoke test. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. The cinder cert process is pretty much an exam. I think the work certification covers exactly what we are doing. Give cinder-core are the people on the hook for any cinder problems (including vendor specific ones), and the cinder core are the people who get bad-mouthed when there are problems (including vendor specific ones), I think this level of certification gives us value. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On 06/09/2014 03:38 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is certified and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word certificate. This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. 2. to testify to or vouch for in writing: The medical examiner will certify his findings to the court. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. 4. to guarantee (a check) by writing on its face that the account against which it is drawn has sufficient funds to pay it. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certify The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing the attesting. I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word certificate and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. Thank you for your participation, Anita. Hi Anita, Just a note on cross-posting to both the os-dev and os-tc lists. Anyone not on the TC who will hits reply-all is likely to see their post be rejected by the TC list moderator, but go through to the more open dev list. As a result, the thread diverges (as we saw with the recent election stats/turnout thread). Also, moderation rejects are an unpleasant user experience. So if a post is intended to reach out for input from the wider dev community, it's better to post *only* to the -dev list, or vice versa if you want to interact with a narrower audience. My post was intended to include the tc list in the discussion I have no say in what posts the tc email list moderator accepts or does not, or how those posts not accepted are informed of their status. Thanks Eoghan, Anita. Thanks, Eoghan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options: 1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the certification to the project level. 2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of Vendor-specific Drivers. Ramy -Original Message- From: Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 4:50 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified On 6 June 2014 18:29, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is certified and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word certificate. This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. So the cinder team are attesting that a set of tests have been run against a driver: a certified driver. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. We (the cinder) team) are guaranteeing that the driver has been tested, in at least one configuration, and found to pass all of the tempest tests. This is a far better state than we were at 6 months ago, where many drivers didn't even pass a smoke test. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. The cinder cert process is pretty much an exam. I think the work certification covers exactly what we are doing. Give cinder-core are the people on the hook for any cinder problems (including vendor specific ones), and the cinder core are the people who get bad-mouthed when there are problems (including vendor specific ones), I think this level of certification gives us value. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options: 1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the certification to the project level. 2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of Vendor-specific Drivers. Hi Ramy, Thanks for these constructive suggestions. The second option is certainly a very direct and specific reflection of what is actually involved in getting the Cinder project's imprimatur. The first option is also a bit clearer, in the sense of the scope of the certification. Cheers, Eoghan Ramy -Original Message- From: Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 4:50 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified On 6 June 2014 18:29, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is certified and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word certificate. This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. So the cinder team are attesting that a set of tests have been run against a driver: a certified driver. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. We (the cinder) team) are guaranteeing that the driver has been tested, in at least one configuration, and found to pass all of the tempest tests. This is a far better state than we were at 6 months ago, where many drivers didn't even pass a smoke test. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. The cinder cert process is pretty much an exam. I think the work certification covers exactly what we are doing. Give cinder-core are the people on the hook for any cinder problems (including vendor specific ones), and the cinder core are the people who get bad-mouthed when there are problems (including vendor specific ones), I think this level of certification gives us value. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options: 1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the certification to the project level. 2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of Vendor-specific Drivers. Hi Ramy, Thanks for these constructive suggestions. The second option is certainly a very direct and specific reflection of what is actually involved in getting the Cinder project's imprimatur. I do like tested. I'd like to understand what the foundation is planning for certification as well, to know how big of an issue this really is. Even if they aren't going to certify drivers, I have heard discussions around training and possibly other areas so I would hate for us to introduce confusion by having different uses of that term in similar contexts. Mark, do you know who is working on that within the board or foundation? Doug The first option is also a bit clearer, in the sense of the scope of the certification. Cheers, Eoghan Ramy -Original Message- From: Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 4:50 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified On 6 June 2014 18:29, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is certified and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word certificate. This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. So the cinder team are attesting that a set of tests have been run against a driver: a certified driver. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. We (the cinder) team) are guaranteeing that the driver has been tested, in at least one configuration, and found to pass all of the tempest tests. This is a far better state than we were at 6 months ago, where many drivers didn't even pass a smoke test. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. The cinder cert process is pretty much an exam. I think the work certification covers exactly what we are doing. Give cinder-core are the people on the hook for any cinder problems (including vendor specific ones), and the cinder core are the people who get bad-mouthed when there are problems (including vendor specific ones), I think this level of certification gives us value. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing the attesting. I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word certificate and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that certified driver or similar would suggest something other than I think we mean. And, for whatever its worth, the topic did come up at a Foundation board meeting and some board members expressed similar concerns, although I guess that was more precisely about the prospect of the Foundation calling drivers certified. Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is certified and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word certificate. This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. 2. to testify to or vouch for in writing: The medical examiner will certify his findings to the court. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. 4. to guarantee (a check) by writing on its face that the account against which it is drawn has sufficient funds to pay it. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certify The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing the attesting. I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word certificate and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. Thank you for your participation, Anita. I didn't see that summit session. Is someone claiming that a driver is being certified? Or asking that someone certify a driver? Doug ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
