Open Stack

On 11/14/2013 03:24 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Joshua McKenty wrote:
>> Thierry, I'll make sure this motion lands on the agenda for discussion
>> at the next board meeting. I don't see a gerritt entry for that motion,
>> though - where is the vote recorded?
> 
> The review is at:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55375/
> 
> The votes also appear on the git notes for the commit:
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/commit/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names?id=493e7c65cfbd3bd75409c84d089f57f4aab88da4
> 
> (TC members vote using +2/-2, everyone else can voice their opinion by
> voting +1/-1)
> 
>> Since I have grave concerns about the use of the term OpenStack in
>> relationship to either of these projects (in either of the two forms of
>> the term "core" that you've referenced), I imagine it will be, as usual,
>> a lively debate.
> 
> Agreed :) I personally think that this resolution reflects the current
> usage on the technical side: we traditionally start calling projects
> "OpenStack X" once they are integrated (for example, we've been calling
> Heat "OpenStack Orchestration" in the Havana release announcement). So
> it is the TC recommendation that this usage is actually allowed.
> 
> In all cases clarification for that grey area is definitely desirable...
> for the current projects and to set expectations right for the ones
> coming up.

I look forward to the lively debate!

I think it's important to frame a specific part of it. Heat and
Ceilometer are part of OpenStack. That part has happened, it's a fait
acompli. The TC decided that as part of the community-based meritocracy
governance, which is how questions of what goes in the software are
decided. Contributions to the projects convey ATC status and qualify
contributors to vote on TC elections. They get summit tracks. They are
considered available to be depended on by other OpenStack projects. We
shipped them in the release.

I think the board attempting to say that they are not, in fact, a part
of OpenStack would be a vast overstepping of boundaries. Anyone on the
board who is unhappy with the TC's decisions on that matter is welcome
to join the decision making process - it's open to everyone, and we're
pretty friendly. But we never have and as long as I can help it never
will have a technical decision made by our ATCs overridden by folks on
the business side.

Now, whether or not use by people of the OpenStack mark should require
either project is the basis of the current work by the interop
committee. Even if other parts of OpenStack develop hard-depends on heat
and ceilometer existing, that does not mean that their APIs have to be
in the keystone service catalog, so it's completely within the board's
domain to decide that a cloud that does not provide a heat endpoint can
still call itself an openstack cloud - and I THOROUGHLY look forward to
that debate!