Open Stack

- Troy

> On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> Boris Renski wrote:
>> So if I am interpreting this correctly, we are doing away with the
>> concept of Core entirely until after the interop work is done? 
>> 
>> Otherwise, I am a bit unclear as to the difference between "integrated"
>> and "core" at this point?
> 
> I fear that the term "core" is way too overloaded at this point to be
> used in any useful context. Like Mark said there are two different
> trademark concepts, both of which are using the term "core". The first
> one is:
> 
>>> 1) *Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as
>>> "OpenStack Orchestration"? Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a
>>> done deal and we are already doing it in practice. And its covered
>>> under the bylaws once they are included in the integrated release by
>>> TC vote. There is no need for further action.
> 
> That one is designated as "The Core OpenStack project" in the bylaws, a
> list maintained by the secretary, recommended by the technical
> committee, and approved by the BoD. It is what the recent TC resolution
> was about.
> 
>>> 2) *Must* a commercial product or service branded "OpenStack" use
>>> heat or ceilometer or project X from the integrated release?  This is
>>> the work underway.
> 
> This one is the effort around trademark usage and interop, and it's also
> using the "core" term (as in: "the 'what is core' spider").
> 
> So I'm not sure we can do away with the concept of core entirely until
> the interop work is done... but we could certainly stop using that same
> confusing term for both things.

+1

> 
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board