<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: Doug Hellmann [mailto:doug@doughellmann.com]<br>
> The actual current proposal, if I understand correctly, is to require <br>
> the Swift APIs be provided, but not require the use of Swift’s code to <br>
> do so. We may be converging on dropping the requirement of the APIs, <br>
> but I don’t think that’s settled.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The current Havana recommendation includes some Swift APIs; however, I believe we should (and will ask the Board to) reconsider that based on feedback I have been getting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><br>
> I believe, and Rob please correct me if I misunderstood, that some <br>
> distros would also like to provide an OpenStack product that doesn’t <br>
> include object storage in any way (neither Swift nor Ceph). I’m not <br>
> especially inclined to care about that use case, but it’s out there.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I don’t see distros doing omitting whole projects; however, more integrated products or services have already proven that they will be more selective. IMHO, that’s the market giving us critical feedback and we should be careful in over fencing the market.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>