Open Stack

Hi Rob,

At the last meeting I volunteered to step up on the capabilities bit. I imagine that there will be a number of meetings that will be held  on a different (and probably more frequent) cycle than the full DefCore committee. Adrian and Justin will be helping me to make sure that we have enough manpower to hit the necessary pace.

I will be sending out a Doodle soon to start working on meeting times.

Thanks,
Van

____________________________
Van Lindberg
VP and Associate General Counsel
van.lindberg at rackspace.com
m: 214.364.7985


On January 5, 2015 at 2:32:27 PM, Rob Hirschfeld (rob at zehicle.com<mailto:rob at zehicle.com>) wrote:

All,


At the last meeting, we committed to having a working session with the Foundation staff and counsel to make some recommendations about structural changes in the DefCore committee that would allow the Foundation to play a larger role in shepherding the process.  This is natural since they are the ones who interact with the vendors and enforce the trademarks.


We covered a lot of ground, I'm going to try and review it as a single email.  I'd like comments so I'm numbering the items for easy reference.


1) Role for Foundation on DefCore


I felt that it was important to have an official role for the Foundation so that meetings and announcements could make official progress even without having one of the Chairs involved.  There is substantial work to be done and we cannot be limited by the schedule of the chairs.  After discussing several options including leaving it ad hoc, everyone on the call agreed that having an official Secretary would address all concerns.  There's an expectation, not a requirement, that the Secretary is also on the Foundation staff.


Since this is internal to the committee, we can act on it immediately.   If you have concerns, please raise this here!  If not, please +1.


> ACTION: Appoint Foundation staffer, Chris Hoge, to be DefCore Secretary for the Scale cycle.


2) Burn Down Calendar for Icehouse & Juno


Companies will want to prepare to make statements in Early April so that Board needs to approve capabilities in early April!  That means we need to target March 3rd to have Juno capabilities in community review!  Ideally, we can mainly focus on deltas from Havana and this work can go quickly.


We considered that it likely practical to review Icehouse and Juno in parallel since they are additive.


> ACTION: Form subcommittee to start capabilities review process.  Coordinated by DefCore Secretary.


3) Decoupling Refstack


DefCore is about defining the tests, not scoring them.  We have clear needs for a project like Refstack to help score vendors and collect usage data, it's not a blocker for our process.  We want to support Refstack; however, we also need to keep DefCore timelines.  For that reason, it's important to acknowledge that DefCore, as approved by the Board, is not dependent on Refstack milestones.


> POSITION: For Scale cycle, vendors can SELF-CERTIFY that they meet the DefCore criteria without any additional validation.  Ideally, we'd have Refstack to allow them to prove compliance; however, we cannot commit to that right now.  Basically, we are agreeing to take vendors at their word at this point.


Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob at rackn.com)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt

_______________________________________________
Defcore-committee mailing list
Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20150105/6782bced/attachment.html>