<div dir="ltr">Just to clear, I have nothing against Heat or Ceilometer calling themselves OpenStack Orchestration and OpenStack Metering respectively. <div><br></div><div>What I am trying to understand is the current difference between core and integrated projects and it doesn't sound like anybody knows. </div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Monty Taylor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mordred@inaugust.com" target="_blank">mordred@inaugust.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I believe the part of the thing Jonathan was referencing that the TC is<br>
talking about is the final line of 4.1(b):<br>
<br>
"The Secretary shall maintain a list of the modules in the Core<br>
OpenStack Project which shall be posted on the Foundation’s website."<br>
<br>
Which led us to believe that we needed to suggest that the secretary<br>
update the list of modules so that heat and ceilometer could use the naming.<br>
<br>
However, I believe that Jonathan has clarified that this is not<br>
necessary and the both of them are already allowed to use that naming<br>
because they are part of the integrated release. This does not make them<br>
"Core" - but they do not need to be core in order to accomplish the<br>
thing the TC was asking about.<br>
<br>
SO - I think everyone's intent is in line, and we needed clarity on the<br>
actions actually needed.<br>
<br>
On 11/14/2013 12:56 PM, Boris Renski wrote:<br>
> OK, I am totally confused then.<br>
><br>
> If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"<br>
> then we return to the question of current difference between integrated<br>
> and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion<br>
> contradicts Thierry's.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps, we should all just agree that there is no difference until<br>
> after the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of<br>
> tests?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Bryce <<a href="mailto:jbryce@jbryce.com">jbryce@jbryce.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jbryce@jbryce.com">jbryce@jbryce.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b)<br>
> (<a href="http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/" target="_blank">http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/</a>):<br>
><br>
> "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not<br>
> the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack<br>
> trademark except when distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."<br>
><br>
> In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is<br>
> another way of saying "distributed with the integrated release.”<br>
> Since Heat and Ceilometer are part of the integrated release<br>
> starting with Havana, as voted on by the TC, the projects (a.k.a.<br>
> "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic name, such<br>
> as "OpenStack Orchestration," without being added to the "Core"<br>
> list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not distributed as<br>
> part of the integrated release could not as they don’t meet the<br>
> exception in the sentence above.<br>
><br>
> To provide some context from the drafting process when this was<br>
> written, the intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly<br>
> approved by the Board as part of the Core OpenStack Project which<br>
> would be useful for determining interop and commercial product and<br>
> service trademark usage. This is along the lines of the “spider”<br>
> work that has been going on. The exception in the sentence quoted<br>
> above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that<br>
> included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit<br>
> to be developed, released and distributed as part of the total set<br>
> of OpenStack software, but that may not have the universal<br>
> applicability of a module of the Core OpenStack Project that became<br>
> a required component for commercial trademark use.<br>
><br>
> Jonathan<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski <<a href="mailto:brenski@mirantis.com">brenski@mirantis.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:brenski@mirantis.com">brenski@mirantis.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD<br>
> passes the resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack<br>
> Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an<br>
> integrated project called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"<br>
> ><br>
> > Am I getting it right?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > > *Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as<br>
> > > "OpenStack Orchestration"? Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a<br>
> > > done deal and we are already doing it in practice. And its covered<br>
> > > under the bylaws once they are included in the integrated release by<br>
> > > TC vote. There is no need for further action.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez<br>
> <<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org">thierry@openstack.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org">thierry@openstack.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > Boris Renski wrote:<br>
> > > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the<br>
> difference<br>
> > > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said,<br>
> but it<br>
> > > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.<br>
> ><br>
> > Well, no.<br>
> ><br>
> > "Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together<br>
> > every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.<br>
> ><br>
> > "The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of<br>
> > projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends<br>
> that<br>
> > it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may<br>
> decide<br>
> > to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).<br>
> ><br>
> > And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".<br>
> ><br>
> > So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and<br>
> one of<br>
> > the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far<br>
> > as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)<br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Foundation-board mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org">Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org">Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org</a>><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Foundation-board mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org">Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org">Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org</a>><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Foundation-board mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org">Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board</a><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>