<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>> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry@openstack.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> > But as far as technical feedback is concerned, it's difficult to ask <br>
> > Swift contributors if they agree that none of the code they wrote is <br>
> > necessary to call your product "powered by OpenStack". Of course <br>
> > they won't agree: it's actually not a judgment of technical value, <br>
> > it's just a trademark policy choice. By extension, it's difficult to <br>
> > ask the Technical Committee, the body representing all those <br>
> > contributors, to agree that part of the code they produce is not <br>
> > necessary or less important. That body can only give one answer, and <br>
> > will continue to do so.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Thierry,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Thanks for your summary [snipped]. The DefCore is working as per the TC recommendation and I'm hopeful that you are correct about consensus technical guideance for Designated Sections since the Board's likely position is towards a smaller core.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I do want to stress that Core is not about picking "important" code. I agree that all of the code is important. The DefCore process is about picking long term stable and mature code that serves as the foundation for products and ecosystems.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I suspect the challenge here is that many in the community believe that while APIs should be long term and stable, implementations behind those API need flexibility to innovate. This was a central theme around the original DefCore principles that the Board
implemented in Hong Kong. The Swift/Ceph challenge is not unique. There are many places where is a substantial body of the commercial implementations (and user community too) that want the freedom to change parts of the implementation. This is a widely
held position that surfaces often in my numerous discussions about core.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I don't have a position on individual projects or specific vendor products (Dell no longer offer's a standalone OpenStack solution); however, I believe that this principle is imperative for the long term health and overall strength of OpenStack.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Rob<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>