Open Stack

The ironic thing is the use of "trademark program" pre-dates the use of 
program in OpenStack, and it hasn't seemed to create a large problem to 
this point.

Jonathan


On October 16, 2014 11:05:28 PM Michael Still <mikal at stillhq.com> wrote:

> Given the term "program" is already in use in OpenStack to describe
> something different, I think you need to find a different word here.
>
> Michael
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:50 AM, rob at zehicle.com <rob at zehicle.com> wrote:
>
> >   DefCore,
> >
> > Feedback is welcome!  I'm preparing the board report for the meeting
> > Monday (yikes, Monday!) and need to create the background info and
> > proposals for the meeting.
> >
> > Here's the description I have for the change.  I'll send the proposals out
> > for review tomorrow.
> >
> > --------------------------
> >
> > During the post-meeting review, Mark Collier drafted a Foundation
> > supported recommendation
> > 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WHVGwIxLSB0Dh9xVntxO5faM4pJjTe0yM0JwpsLUebA/edit?usp=sharing> 
> that basically
> > creates an additional core tier *without changing the fundamental
> > capabilities & designated code* concepts.  This proposal has been
> > reviewed by the DefCore committee (but not formally approved in a meeting).
> >
> > The original DefCore proposed capabilities set becomes the "platform"
> > level while capability subsets are called "programs."  We are considering
> > two initial programs, Compute & Object, and both are included in the
> > platform (see illustration below).  The approach leaves the door open
> > for new core programs to exist both under and outside of the platform
> > umbrella.
> >
> > [image: DefCore Platform and Programs v1.1]
> > 
> <https://robhirschfeld.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/defcore-platform-and-programs-v1-1.png>
> >
> > In the proposal, OpenStack vendors who meet either program or platform
> > requirements can qualify for the "OpenStack Powered" logo; however, vendors
> > using the only a program (instead of the full platform) will have
> > more restrictive marks and limitations about how they can use the term
> > OpenStack.
> >
> > This approach addresses the "is Swift required?" question.  For platform,
> > Swift capabilities will be required; however, vendors will be able
> > to implement the Compute program without Swift and implement the Object
> > program without Nova/Glance/Cinder.
> >
> > It's important to note that there is only one yard stick for programs or
> > the platform: the capabilities groups and designed code defined by the
> > DefCore process.  From that perspective, OpenStack is one consistent
> > thing.  This change allows vendors to choose sub-components if that serves
> > their business objectives.
> >
> >
> >  Rob
> >  ____________________________
> > Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
> >
> > I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
> > http://robhirschfeld.com
> > twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Defcore-committee mailing list
> > Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rackspace Australia
>
>
>
> ----------
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20141016/ba88944d/attachment-0001.html>