[openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified

Eoghan Glynn eglynn at redhat.com
Mon Jun 9 08:44:05 UTC 2014



----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin < markmc at redhat.com > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
> > The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a
> > group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only
> > as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting.
> > We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for
> > evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing
> > the attesting.
> > 
> > I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing
> > of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address
> > the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to
> > proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word
> > "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack
> > programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some
> > discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that "certified driver" or
> similar would suggest something other than I think we mean.
> ​Can you expand on the above comment? In other words a bit more about what
> "you" mean. I think from the perspective of a number of people that
> participate in Cinder the intent is in fact to say. Maybe it would help
> clear some things up for folks that don't see why this has become a
> debatable issue.
> 
> By running CI tests successfully that it is in fact a ​way of certifying that
> our device and driver is in fact 'certified' to function appropriately and
> provide the same level of API and behavioral compatability as the default
> components as demonstrated by running CI tests on each submitted patch.
> 
> Personally I believe part of the contesting of the phrases and terms is
> partly due to the fact that a number of organizations have their own
> "certification" programs and tests. I think that's great, and they in fact
> provide some form of "certification" that a device works in their
> environment and to their expectations.
> 
> Doing this from a general OpenStack integration perspective doesn't seem all
> that different to me. For the record, my initial response to this was that I
> didn't have too much preference on what it was called (verification,
> certification etc etc), however there seems to be a large number of people
> (not product vendors for what it's worth) that feel differently.

Since "certification" seems to be quite an overloaded term
already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as
"quality assured" better capture the Cinder project's use of
the word?

It does exactly what it says on the tin ... i.e. captures the
fact that a vendor has run an agreed battery of tests against
their driver and the harness has reported green-ness with a
meaning that is well understood upstream (as the Tempest test
cases are in the public domain). 

Cheers,
Eoghan



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list