<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Mark, Thierry, Vish, Jonathan and Mark,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve been trying to parse this thread. I cannot be certain but it appears that you’ve generally reached the _<i>same positions</i>_ as DefCore.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This thread recovers ground from DefCore discussions that we’ve had multiple times. I’m happy to see the conversation and I think it would be productive to discuss them in the DefCore meetings where we openly cover these same issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m hoping that we the Tuesday IRC meeting will be productive. We should be prepared for an additional phone meeting as a backup. While the these meetings work for the TC, the Board has not been as successful with that format.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rob<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry@openstack.org]<br>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 4:25 AM<br>
> To: defcore-committee<br>
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] [OpenStack Foundation] Understanding <br>
> DefCore<br>
> <br>
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:<br>
> > Given that the board is the deciding body for that question, but <br>
> > they/we are looking for the widest possible consultation on it, how about:<br>
> ><br>
> > * The Board comes up with a very rough strawman set of "required<br>
> > code" based on its very rough understanding of the technical<br>
> > architecture and the current commercial ecosystem. It could be the<br>
> > Defcore committee delegated to draft this strawman and the<br>
> > "required code" could still be called "designated sections"<br>
> ><br>
> > * The wider community (including the TC and PTLs) is asked to give its<br>
> > input in the form of questions - i.e. "what are we missing?"<br>
> ><br>
> > * The Board openly answers those questions (perhaps DefCore triages<br>
> > and answers the straightforward ones) and those answers effectively<br>
> > determine the final "required code" policy.<br>
> <br>
> I agree that this process would be a lot less backward.<br>
> <br>
> The TC can't be the source for designating "replaceable code": as the <br>
> representation of contributors to the project, it's difficult for us <br>
> to encourage any code replacement. However we recognize that it's <br>
> within the Board power to define trademark programs, and we can <br>
> certainly provide technical comments against a strawman proposal (as <br>
> should the PTLs and the wider community do).<br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Defcore-committee mailing list<br>
> Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>