Hey Luis Yep, you've hit on a real issue here. Thierry goes to great length on this here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/2014-April/000110.htm... The idea is that there is an Integrated Release managed by the "technical meritocracy" (i.e. the TC, PTLs, release team, etc.) and, separately, a subset of this as determined by the Foundation Board which is required in order to use the trademark. This subset used to be a list of projects known as "Core" but we're evolving that into a set of functionality and required code. The intent is for the bylaws to reflect that change without changing the TC's independent responsibility for the scope of the Integrated Release. Thanks, Mark. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Luis Villa" <lvilla@wikimedia.org> To: "Mark McLoughlin" <markmc@redhat.com> Cc: legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org Sent: Sunday, 13 April, 2014 8:57:58 AM Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] [Fwd: [OpenStack-DefCore] Revised Bylaws]
About 4(1)(b)(iii):
===============
After the OSP New Definition Date, the scope of the *Core* OpenStack Project *which is an integrated release* shall be determined as set forth in Section 4.13(c)(ii). The use of the OpenStack trademarks on the OpentStack*OpenStack* Project shall be defined in the Trademark Policy in Section 7.3.
===============
The addition of "which is an integrated release" seems redundant to me, since "Core OpenStack Project" is defined in 4(1)(b)(iii) as "the software modules which are part of an integrated release". It might not be redundant if "which is an" is different from "which are part of", but if that is the case, then I think that distinction should be elaborated/made explicit - as it currently stands it is somewhat confusing.
Luis
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
Hey
I figure these proposed amendments are relevant to this list too.
Thanks, Mark.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Radcliffe, Mark <Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com> To: Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> Cc: Eileen Evans Esq. (eileen.evans@hp.com) <eileen.evans@hp.com>, defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org <defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org>, Roay, Leslie <Leslie.Roay@dlapiper.com> Subject: [OpenStack-DefCore] Revised Bylaws Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:03:01 +0000
I am enclosing the current version of the Bylaws marked to show differences to the existing version (v15 to v.18) and marked to show the changes to the initial revised draft (v.17 to v.18). This second set of changes reflects comments raised at the last meeting of the committee, particularly by Mark McLoughlin on behalf of the Technical Committee. Version 18 has not yet been approved by the committee. These changes are meant to reflect the need to move from a "module" based method of determining when the trademark can be used to a more flexible method which can be agreed upon by the Technical Committee and the Board. As I said to Mark and I think that he passed on to the Technical Committee, the reasons for the DefCore and these revisions are as follows:
I appreciate your comments at the Bylaws committee meeting. We don't want to have the TC misunderstand the reasons for the bylaws change or
their consequences. These changes are focused solely on determining how and when the trademark can be used. We want to ensure that the TC
has an active role in the decisions. Consequently, we will shift back to the use of "core" for these procedures being set up. However, as
I noted, a number of members of DefCore Committee have expressed a desire to use a word other than "core" for this concept so we may see
an additional change in the name .
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Defcore-committee mailing list Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
_______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*