Open Stack

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 22:19 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > In trying to wrap my head around DefCore, I read the DefCore
>> > committe's mission as documented on the committee's wiki page[0]. The
>> > mission is to "define 'OpenStack Core' as chartered by the by-laws and
>> > guided by Governance/CoreDefinition.'  While the bylaws don't have any
>> > reference to "OpenStack Core" they do define a term called "Core
>> > OpenStack Project"[1]. Is this what the DefCore Comittee is refering
>> > to when talking about "OpenStack Core?"
>>
>> Yes, it is. The crucial bit is:
>>
>>   "The Core OpenStack Project means the software modules which are part
>>    of an integrated release and for which an OpenStack trademark may be
>>    used. 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."
>>
>> The aspect of this I think everyone is agreed on is that "The Core
>> OpenStack Project" is a subset of the integrated release. And that "The
>> Core OpenStack Project" has something to do with the OpenStack
>> trademark.
>>
>> There are two interpretations of this AFAICT:
>>
>>   1) Only the core modules can be called OpenStack Foo and OpenStack Bar
>>
>>   2) Only the core modules can be required in some way for commercial
>>      products which license the OpenStack trademark in some way
>
>
> Isn't legalese fun.  I have a third interpretation that combined those two.
>
> Only the core modules can be called OpenStack Foo and OpenStack Bar (as long
> as the usage is in line with the Trademark Policy), and how the trademarks
> are licensed is subject to the Trademark Policy. The Trademark Policy cannot
> define a trademark that only requires something outside of the Core
> OpenStack Project. For example the Trademark Policy clearly states what is
> required to use the "Powered by OpenStack™" trademark. So the issue of
> licensing the trademark for commercial products is purview of only the
> Trademark Policy. Any requirements of running or passing specific tests
> would fit under the Trademark Policy.

I gave Joe a call to have a chat about this, and it seems to be we can
best progress this by sharing a draft of the proposed trade mark
policy after the defcore changes go through. Who can share a link to
the proposed new policy?

>> The DefCore effort is about clarifying (2) "by defining 1) capabilities,
>> 2) code and 3) must-pass tests for all OpenStack products. This
>> definition [..] drives interoperability by creating the minimum
>> standards for products labeled "OpenStack."
>
>
> Based on my interpretation above, this goal would not apply to defining
> core, but about amending the Trademark Policy, as the bylaws describe when
> talking about how the Board of Directors may amend the the Trademark Policy
> without doing a general vote as long as the amendment is made prior to
> January 31, 2013.
>
> "amend the Trademark Policy prior to January 31, 2013 to establish testing
> and certification requirements for the use of the trademarks owned by the
> Foundation in connection with the use of the Core OpenStack Project."
>
>>
>>
>> >  If so, the bylaws already clearly state the process to change what
>> > software modules make up the "Core OpenStack Project." The Technical
>> > Committee(TC) proposes a change to what is in the "Core OpenStack
>> > Project" and the Board of Directors has the sole authrity to approve
>> > or reject the TC's recommendation [2].
>>
>> Under interpretation (1) above, that means the TC can ask the board for
>> e.g. Heat to be called OpenStack Orchestration:
>>
>>
>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names.rst
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge the Board of Directors has not approved this
> resolution. I have not been able to find any evidence of a vote on this.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Under interpretation (2) above, the TC would be recommending that Heat
>> should in some way be required for OpenStack products.
>
>
>
> The current list of The current list of modules in "Core OpenStack Project"
> are "Block Storage, Compute, Dashboard, Identity Service, Image Service,
> Networking, and Object Storage modules." But the Trademark Policy says "The
> Powered by OpenStack' Logo, shown immediately below, may be used by
> individuals, organizations, and companies that use formally released
> OpenStack Compute (Nova) code in their application or product." And never
> says an OpenStack product must run all the modules in  "Core OpenStack
> Project." In fact it never uses the word 'Core.'
>
> which makes me thing interpretation (2) is not entirely correct.
>
>>
>>
>> >  This mismatch between DefCore's mission and the bylaws has already
>> > been identified by the DefCore committee itself [3]. So if the current
>> > mission statement doesn't align with the bylaws then what is the
>> > DefCore committe's current mission statement?
>>
>> It's part of the DefCore committee's mission to help get the bylaws
>> confusion clarified AIUI.
>>
>> AFAICT the assumption is that the language should be clarified such that
>> interpretation (2) is clear.
>>
>> > The 'Core Definition' document[5] mentions DefCore will help
>> > "determine how commercial implementations of OpenStack can be granted
>> > use of the trademark," and the committee "may suggest changes to the
>> > by-laws to clarify the definition of core." So presumably DefCore is
>> > not about defining "Core OpenStack Project," but rather about revising
>> > the trademark policy as defined in Appendix 8 of the bylaws [6].
>>
>> It's about changing how "Core OpenStack Project" is defined such that it
>> is no longer "a set of modules which is a subset of the integrated
>> release" but instead "a set of API tests and required sections of code".
>>
>> That involves both coming up with the process for managing that (in that
>> it wouldn't begin simply with the TC nominating some modules for Core)
>> and proposing the bylaws changes to reflect the process.
>>
>> That raises the question of what happens if DefCore-recommended bylaws
>> changes can't be passed. What interpretation of the current bylaws
>> allows the commercial trademark requirements process to evolve in this
>> way?
>
>
> The bylaws seem pretty clear about this, the commercial trademark
> requirements cannot evolve without a large vote " In addition to the vote of
> the Board of Directors as provided in Section 9.1, the amendment of the
> following Sections requires an affirmative vote of (i) two-thirds of the
> Gold Members, (ii) two-thirds of the Platinum Members, and (iii) a majority
> of the Individual Members voting (but only if at least 25% of the Individual
> Members vote at an annual or special meeting): Article II (not including the
> Appendices referenced in Article II), Sections 4.1, 4.2(a), 4.9, 4.10, 4.11,
> 4.13, 4.17, 4.20, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 "   7.3 is the Trademark Policy
>
>>
>>
>> >  This interpretation alligns with the special clause on ammendments in
>> > the bylaws "the Board of Directors may by majority vote, amend the
>> > Trademark Policy prior to January 31, 2013 to establish testing and
>> > certification requirements for the use of the trademarks owned by the
>> > Foundation in connection with the use of the Core OpenStack
>> > Project."[7]  What is the progress on drafting a revision to the
>> > trademark policy? Is there a preliminary draft on the proposed change?
>> > Seeing this would help me wrap my better understand DefCore.
>>
>> Good question, I don't know if the Foundation is working on drafting a
>> new trademark policy.
>>
>> AIUI the Foundation staff is responsible for the details of the
>> trademark policy and it has changed somewhat since the bylaws were
>> drafted. I think it was only included in the bylaws for informational
>> purposes and doesn't require a vote of the Individual Members. Then
>> again, section 9.2(a) suggests voting is required to change any of the
>> appendices.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>> > [0] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/DefCoreCommittee
>> > [1] http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/
>> > Sections 4.1.b
>> > [2] http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/
>> > Sections 4.13.b
>> > [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreBylawsIPE
>> > [5] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/CoreDefinition
>> > [6] http://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-trademark-policy/
>> > [7] http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/
>> > Sections 9.2.d
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

Thanks,
Michael

-- 
Rackspace Australia