Open Stack

Sorry for the slow response... I'm reviewing these.  There's a approved refstack spec about this also that we should incorporate into any plans.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom at openstack.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:50 AM
> To: Hirschfeld, Rob; joshua at pistoncloud.com
> Cc: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Please review, results from
> Designated Sections review w/ recommendations. +1s needed
>
> I'm pretty much blocked out until the ops meetup is over (say 1st
> September or
> so) - when is that board meeting again?
>
> but anyway, here's what I'm thinking:
>
> Simple webapp that does away with everything but components,
> explaining the complex bits only in context for what a potential
> trademark applicant is trying to do with components.
>
> so, two parts:
>
> 1) the form (static html) - what is the activity {run a cloud, make a
> storage product etc}, what trademark {powered, compatible, etc}, and
> which components are being used
>
> 2) the result page (a template, filled in by some code based on the
> form
> selections)
>
> that talks about whether the components they've ticked are enough, and
> also about what they're allowed to do with those components.
> Ideally, each component name would link off to a dedicated page for
> that component explaining the 'designated sections' and required API things.
>
> mockups attached - very, very rough!
>
>
> I'd propose to create this and circulate it so that the community can
> understand the impact of the suggested designated sections before the board meeting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tom
>
> On 15/08/14 14:04, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
> > Tom / Josh,
> >
> >
> >
> > We can update the examples; however, I think that we could use some
> > help here. You can I are very close to the material and make
> > assumptions about reader knowledge when explaining it.
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be helpful to have someone (Tom?) with a fresh perspective
> > take a pass at it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom at openstack.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:52 PM
> >> To: Joshua McKenty
> >> Cc: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> >> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Please review, results from
> >> Designated Sections review w/ recommendations. +1s needed
> >>
> >> All good with me :) Though, I would note the timeframe here is short.
> >> We obviously want the community to be able to understand the real
> >> impact of these suggested designated suggestions and comment on
> >> them well before any board meeting, so revisited sooner the better IMO!
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15/08/14 10:47, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> >> > Tom, those examples we're put together before the trademark was
> >> > changed
> >> by the foundation staff. We may need to revisit those practical concerns.
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >
> >> >> On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Tom Fifield wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hit send too soon :) I also didn't find any "practical
> >> >> implementation concerns" in those slides - that would also be
> >> >> appreciated :)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>> I'm also interested in any practical implementation concerns
> >> >>>>> you think can arise based on the below suggestions.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> For example, in the case of an "OpenStack Powered" cloud that
> >> >>>>> offers an object store that is not swift, would they be
> >> >>>>> recommended/required to denote that actually that particular
> >> >>>>> bit was
> >> not "Openstack Powered"?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I could see that being confusing for users, and my guess is
> >> >>>>> there might be some similar cases that should be managed :)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Tom
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 15/08/14 10:41, Tom Fifield wrote:
> >> >>> Hi Rob,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks for the reply :)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I actually find these pretty complicated - is there a chance
> >> >>> for some simpler ones?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Tom
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 15/08/14 09:59, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
> >> >>>> Tom,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I agree!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Josh and I did a presentation with examples in ATL
> >> >>>> (http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3695-openstacksummitatl2014-
> cor
> >> >>>> e
> >> >>>> -
> >> v
> >> >>>> ia-crowd-sourcing-defcores-tempest-in-a-docker-container-tcup
> >> >>>> ) and I gave an updated version at OSCON
> >> >>>> (http://www.slideshare.net/rhirschfeld/oscon-2014-def-core-rev
> >> >>>> ie
> >> >>>> w
> >> >>>> )
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> These are also discussed on my blog at
> >> >>>> http://www.slideshare.net/rhirschfeld/oscon-2014-def-core-revi
> >> >>>> ew
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Please let me know if those examples help explain the use of
> >> >>>> the mark better.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thanks
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>>>> From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom at openstack.org]
> >> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:14 PM
> >> >>>>> To: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Please review, results from
> >> >>>>> Designated Sections review w/ recommendations. +1s needed
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi Rob,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Can you provide a few example uses of the commercial marks
> >> >>>>> based on
> >> below?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> eg "I can call my cloud "OpenStack Powered" without regard to
> >> >>>>> the use of Keystone."
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I'm also interested in any practical implementation concerns
> >> >>>>> you think can arise based on the below suggestions.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> For example, in the case of an "OpenStack Powered" cloud that
> >> >>>>> offers an object store that is not swift, would they be
> >> >>>>> recommended/required to denote that actually that particular
> >> >>>>> bit was
> >> not "Openstack Powered"?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I could see that being confusing for users, and my guess is
> >> >>>>> there might be some similar cases that should be managed :)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Tom
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 15/08/14 04:54, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>> DefCore,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> We had a small turn out and very good discussions that were
> >> >>>>>> able to produce clear guidance for Designated Sections (see
> >> >>>>>> below). We also reviewed the Havana capabilities from the
> >> >>>>>> board meeting and the 10 designated sections principles
> >> >>>>>> approved by email. Finally, we setup a calendar for
> >> >>>>>> community review leading up to the September Board meeting
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Here are the recommendations:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Nova is by default designated except scheduler,
> >> >>>>>> filter, drivers, API extensions and networking.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Swift has no designated code due to lack of
> >> >>>>>> consensus (see principles)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Keystone is not designated.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Glance designated sections are the API
> >> >>>>>> implementation code and domain model.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Cinder designated sections are the API
> >> >>>>>> implementation code
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Neutron has no designated sections.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Heat is not a core capability, no position at this time.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * Havana Horizon is not a core capability, no position at
> >> >>>>>> this
> > time.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * other projects do not are not core capabilities and are
> >> >>>>>> not reviewed at this time.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Please contribute to a discussion or +1
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Rob
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> *______________________________*
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> *Rob Hirschfeld*
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Sr. Distinguished Cloud Solution Architect
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> *Dell*| Cloud Edge, Data Center Solutions**
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> *cell*+1 512 909-7219 *blog* robhirschfeld.com, *twitter*
> >> >>>>>> @zehicle
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Please note, I am based in the CENTRAL (-6) time zone
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> Defcore-committee mailing list
> >> >>>>> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> >> >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-c
> >> >>>>> om
> >> >>>>> m
> >> >>>>> it
> >> >>>>> tee
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Defcore-committee mailing list
> >> >>> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> >> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-com
> >> >>> mi
> >> >>> t
> >> >>> te
> >> >>> e
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Defcore-committee mailing list
> >> >> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-comm
> >> >> it
> >> >> t
> >> >> ee
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Defcore-committee mailing list
> >> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committ
> >> ee
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140819/e64dce21/attachment-0001.html>