<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<style type="text/css">.mceResizeHandle {position: absolute;border: 1px solid black;background: #FFF;width: 5px;height: 5px;z-index: 10000}.mceResizeHandle:hover {background: #000}img[data-mce-selected] {outline: 1px solid black}img.mceClonedResizable, table.mceClonedResizable {position: absolute;outline: 1px dashed black;opacity: .5;z-index: 10000}
</style>
</head><body style="">
<div>
<p>DefCore,</p>
<p>Feedback is welcome! I'm preparing the board report for the meeting Monday (yikes, Monday!) and need to create the background info and proposals for the meeting.</p>
<p>Here's the description I have for the change. I'll send the proposals out for review tomorrow.</p>
<p>--------------------------</p>
<p>During the post-meeting review, <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WHVGwIxLSB0Dh9xVntxO5faM4pJjTe0yM0JwpsLUebA/edit?usp=sharing">Mark Collier drafted a Foundation supported recommendation</a> that basically creates an additional core tier <em>without changing the fundamental capabilities & designated code</em> concepts. This proposal has been reviewed by the DefCore committee (but not formally approved in a meeting).</p>
<p>The original DefCore proposed capabilities set becomes the "platform" level while capability subsets are called "programs." We are considering two initial programs, Compute & Object, and both are included in the platform (see illustration below). The approach leaves the door open for new core programs to exist both under and outside of the platform umbrella.</p>
<p><a href="https://robhirschfeld.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/defcore-platform-and-programs-v1-1.png"><img height="437" alt="DefCore Platform and Programs v1.1" width="584" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-3084" src="https://robhirschfeld.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/defcore-platform-and-programs-v1-1.png" border="0" /></a></p>
<p>In the proposal, OpenStack vendors who meet either program or platform requirements can qualify for the "OpenStack Powered" logo; however, vendors using the only a program (instead of the full platform) will have more restrictive marks and limitations about how they can use the term OpenStack.</p>
<p>This approach addresses the "is Swift required?" question. For platform, Swift capabilities will be required; however, vendors will be able to implement the Compute program without Swift and implement the Object program without Nova/Glance/Cinder.</p>
<p>It's important to note that there is only one yard stick for programs or the platform: the capabilities groups and designed code defined by the DefCore process. From that perspective, OpenStack is one consistent thing. This change allows vendors to choose sub-components if that serves their business objectives.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 9pt;">Rob</span>
</div>
<div id="ox-signature">
____________________________
<br />Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
<br />
<br />I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
<br />http://robhirschfeld.com
<br />twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
</div>
</body></html>