Open Stack

This feels like deja-vu, but I just spent some time reviewing the wrong
version of these changes before finding the right one.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think this document:

Change-Pro Redline - 233015232-v15-OpenStackFoundation Bylaws FINAL (as amended September 7, 2012) and 233015232-v24-OpenStackFoundation Bylaws FINAL

is the one we should all be looking at. It shows the changes between the
current bylaws (v15) and the latest proposed changes (v24). I would
really like that document to be published somewhere that we can all
easily refer to rather than it being forwarded around over email.


The main thing that occurs to me is that I wonder why we're perpetuating
this "Core OpenStack Project" term at all. I found this email from
Jonathan extremely instructive:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2014-June/001701.html

The intent is of the "Core OpenStack Project" is to help define the
requirements for commercial trademark usage, but we now have
"capabilities" and "designated sections" to define that. The perception
that the "Core" term creates is there is a subset of the Integrated
Release that the board approves of, and by extension a subset that they
disapprove of.

If we now have a clear way of defining the requirements for trademark
usage, I really don't understand why we're seeking to perpetuate the
confusion and controversy created by the "Core OpenStack Project" term.


As for removing the trademark policy from the bylaws, I see the policy
as a high-level set of principles about how the trademarks should be
managed and I'm fine with those principles requiring bylaws changes.
However, specific implementation details of those principles (like the
exact set of trademark programs) should determined by the board.

In other words, if there are parts of the trademark policy which are
"implementation details" which we feel should be determined by the
board, why not just remove those details from the policy?


More specific comments below.

Mark.

---

4.1

  - The Technical Committee is responsible for managing the OpenStack 
    Project, not simply the Integrated Release.

  - I don't know that the sentence "the OpenStack Project shall include 
    the" is all that useful, and the new wording really doesn't clear up
    any of the confusion it has caused.

  - The whole "New Definition Date" thing is extremely awkward.

  - This section has been a constant source of confusion and
    controversy. I think the proposed changes are simply going to cause 
    more of the same. We should step back and think about what this
    paragraph is attempting to get across. The proposed changes will not
    eliminate the confusion and controversy.

  - "The use of the OpenStack trademarks on the Core OpenStack Project 
    shall be defined in the Trademark Policy in Section 7.3." - I think
    that overstates the purpose of the policy. The policy does little
    more than define some high level principles and leaves the way open
    for defining additional programs.

4.13

  - In 4.13(c)(i) we're now requiring the TC to seek board approval 
    before removing certain capabilities/code from the Integrated 
    Release. I understand that the intent is to avoid poorly handling 
    the removal of parts of OpenStack which we see as critically 
    important, but I really think we need to trust the TC to manage 
    this correctly rather than requiring board sign-off. Imagine the 
    Nova v2 is communicated as deprecated for multiple cycles before it 
    is removed, and then the TC seeks approval for this in advance of 
    the release but the board refuses. Then what?

  - Again, the whole "OSP New Definition Date" thing seems overly 
    involved.

4.15

  - IMO, we should just remove the definition of the Legal Affairs 
    Committee from the bylaws. I don't see why it shouldn't be like any 
    other board subcommittee so that it can be evolved without bylaws 
    changes.

  - The emphasis on the Integrated Release is weird/wrong here. What 
    was wrong with including the entire OpenStack Project in the remit 
    of the committee?

4.17

  - Again, emphasizing the Integrated Release seems wrong.

7.1

  - The "Project" to "Integrated Release" change here implies that the 
    Foundation may distribute software under a license other than the 
    Apache License 2.0. I doubt that's intentional.

7.3

  - I'm not sure I see why the trademark policy needs to be determined 
    by the board. Again, we need the board to be able to determine the 
    "implementation details, but not the high level principles.

Appendix 7

  - "The OpenStack Integrated Release must have a CLA on file" makes no 
    sense.