<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:courier new,monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM, John Griffith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john.griffith@solidfire.com" target="_blank">john.griffith@solidfire.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="">On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markmc@redhat.com" target="_blank">markmc@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:<br>
> The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a<br>
> group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only<br>
> as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting.<br>
> We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for<br>
> evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing<br>
> the attesting.<br>
><br>
> I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing<br>
> of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address<br>
> the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to<br>
> proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word<br>
> "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack<br>
> programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some<br>
> discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have.<br>
<br>
</div>Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that "certified driver" or<br>
similar would suggest something other than I think we mean.<br></blockquote><div> </div></div><div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">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.</div>
<div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></div><div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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. </div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div class=""><div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></div><div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></div><div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
And, for whatever its worth, the topic did come up at a Foundation board<br>
meeting and some board members expressed similar concerns, although I<br>
guess that was more precisely about the prospect of the Foundation<br>
calling drivers "certified".<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-TC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-TC@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-TC@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc</a></blockquote><div> </div></div></div><div style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">
<br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">By the way, has anybody thought about this in an OpenStack general context. I mean, are we saying that we don't offer any sort of certification or verification that the various OpenStack components or services actually work? </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">I realize there are significantly different levels of certification and that's an important distinction as well in my opinion.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing one view over another here, but there are valid points of view being raised.</div>
<br></div></div>