[openstack-dev] The future of Incubation and Core - a motion

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Fri Nov 16 17:57:01 UTC 2012


Hi Anne,
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 08:17 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> Okay, thanks Mark for giving us some good food for thought. I would
> like to propose a different set of 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the
> "direction motion" for us to consider. The first two paragraphs are
> great.
> 
> ---
> 
> We see Incubation as a category for projects who would like to have a
> trial period to share resources and integrate with other OpenStack
> projects. While we as a technical committee need time to evaluate
> projects for inclusion in the OpenStack shared resource set (for
> example, release management, integrated testing and releases,
> continuous integration, documentation, Summit discussion time, and so
> on),

I think this is what we all understand Incubation to be about and it's
not really up for debate with the Board.

>  there should be an end-result for an Incubation period to result
> in a final destination that is not related to all the current
> privileges given to Core projects.

I think this is the bit where you're really trying to make a different
proposal, but I don't fully understand it.

My motion basically says that the end-resource of Incubation is "part of
the OpenStack releases" or "not part of the OpenStack releases".

What other end-result do you see?

> We see trademark privileges as unrelated of the day-to-day work needed
> to create and maintain related, integrated OpenStack projects. Because
> trademark is irrelevant to the other privileges given to a Core
> project, having the term "Core OpenStack Project" in section 4.1.b of
> the bylaws related to trademark is unnecessary.

I don't think we're really differing, but the point I'm trying to
emphasize with:

  We see the term "Core OpenStack Project" in section 4.1.b of the  
  bylaws as being solely related to trademark guidelines. The Foundation
  should simply maintain a list of projects required for trademark 
  usage. We would be happy for that list to be called "Core Projects" 
  or for a new name to be chosen to describe that list.

is that "yes, you the Foundation Board need a list of projects required
for trademark usage" but that we (the TC) don't need to be a part of
maintaining that list nor do we care what the list is called.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we're to vote on two different
motions, it needs to be really clear where the motions differ beyond
just wording.

Cheers,
Mark.




More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list