On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Aaron Coburn <acob...@amherst.edu> wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> will propose it on the general incubator list. The areas we need to >>>>>> work on are in bold. We need to define the project description and >>>>>> scope. I wrote this as "dynamically provisioning and brokering remote >>>>>> access to compute resources". Thoughts? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I would not really understand the scope of VCL from that >>>> statement. >>> >>> I agree more should be added. I kept it short since the example >>> resolutions suggested on the graduation guide page are very short and >>> general: >>> ofbiz: "open-source software related to enterprise automation" >>> >>> Can we just use the description then?: >>> "open-source software related to a modular cloud computing platform >>> which dynamically provisions and brokers remote access to compute >>> resources" >> >> I think this is reasonable - but have a *minor* quibble - >> >> The bulk of what the VCL does (auth/auth, reservations, image >> storage, image loading, ...) seems to me to be fall under the >> "provisions" concept - but "brokers" seems to be getting equal >> emphasis even though it is an added capability. It's an important >> added capability, but perhaps this slight revision might help: > > I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I have always understood > "provisioning" to relate to the infrastructure for image storage, capture and > loading while "brokering" relates to connecting the virtualization or blade > back-end to a user's request, which would include such things as > authentication, authorization, reservations, scheduling, etc. I think the two > are pretty equal in importance. > > Just my $0.02 > > -Aaron C
That's what I was thinking. -Andy
