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

Anne Gentle anne at openstack.org
Fri Nov 16 20:14:32 UTC 2012

Hi Mark,
Good points, I'll try to further delineate where I see differences.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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?

There will be projects that are released together that we all talk
about every week at the project meeting and at twice-annual in-person
events. These are called "nuclear" -- and "core" projects are also
welcomed to be part of the OpenStack release umbrella but will not get
all the associated privileges that three "nuclear" goals have -
compute, network, storage. Perhaps I am trying to define IaaS with
simpler terms since I don't have all the verbiage for defining

The process would be -- those projects not specifically "nuclear" will
have a different set of requirements to be called "core." Those
projects in "incubation" will be promoted to "core" if they meet the
requirements to be called "core" and "core" drops the trademark
connotation but does get other privileges, yet to be defined in the

Does that further walk-through help? Thanks for asking.

>> 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.

The way this could be played out in the details is that "projects
required for trademark usage" could get defined in a "certified
OpenStack" testing effort. Who knows? All we need to do is have the
Foundation define the entry to trademark usage.

> 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.

Agreed, let me know if I can clarify the motion to increase the
differentiation. And, after reading Gabriel's response, I sense that
this divergence for nuclear and core is not what he was saying in his
previous emails (which was partially what I wanted to address). So do
let me know if I'm off base here and if more words help. :)


> Cheers,
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list