Open Stack

On Sep 12, 2014, at 4:09 PM, <Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> <Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> wrote:

> Doug, You are correct.  Keystone has no capabilities defined in Havana. 
>  
> I believe Josh is trying to make a different point > Keystone WOULD have core capabilities if it had the tests.  In that case, we’d had the same implementation discussion for Keystone.   If there were tests then we’d be back into the same discussion about Capabilities with 100% replacement.  

Ah, I didn’t recognize it as a hypothetical question. :-)

Yes, hypothetically, if capabilities that would have been implemented by keystone had been included in the approved list then I would take the same position for Keystone: The board should require the code created by the OpenStack community for trademark use, or it should not require the feature. I don’t want our name used for code someone else writes. 

I don’t think API “compliance” or “compatibility” should be our primary concern for our main trademark use. We can define a secondary mark for some level of compatibility later, but I put more value on the code produced by the community than on compatibility aspects of someone else’s product.

Doug

>  
>  
> From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:doug at doughellmann.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 1:56 PM
> To: Joshua McKenty
> Cc: Hirschfeld, Rob; Russell Bryant; Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Results from Community Meetings > discussion/+1 about reconsidering Havana Swift as a core capability
>  
>  
> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Joshua McKenty <joshua at pistoncloud.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Just so I’m clear, Doug - you would therefore also like to propose some designated sections for Keystone?
>  
> Based on comments from the meeting yesterday, I thought we had no keystone tests, and so there wouldn’t be a need for any designated sections. That’s not optimal, in my mind, because the community did *build* a version of keystone for havana, but if we don’t have the tests or have not required capabilities for some other reason, then I am OK with ignoring the designated sections question for havana. 
>  
> If I misheard or that information about the tests was incorrect, then we should apply the same criteria to keystone that I’m proposing for Swift and either have some designated sections or reconsider whether we include the capabilities. In the keystone case, dropping the capabilities would seriously hinder our ability to say that DefCore is describing an interoperable set of features, since authentication is so pervasive, and so the resolution would need to be thought through very carefully.
>  
> Doug
> 
> 
>  
> --
>  
> Joshua McKenty
> Chief Technology Officer
> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
> +1 (650) 242-5683
> +1 (650) 283-6846
> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>  
> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>  
> On Sep 12, 2014, at 11:35 AM, <Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> <Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:doug at doughellmann.com]
> > The actual current proposal, if I understand correctly, is to require 
> > the Swift APIs be provided, but not require the use of Swift’s code to 
> > do so. We may be converging on dropping the requirement of the APIs, 
> > but I don’t think that’s settled.
> 
> 
> 
> The current Havana recommendation includes some Swift APIs; however, I believe we should (and will ask the Board to) reconsider that based on feedback I have been getting.
> 
> 
> > I believe, and Rob please correct me if I misunderstood, that some 
> > distros would also like to provide an OpenStack product that doesn’t 
> > include object storage in any way (neither Swift nor Ceph). I’m not 
> > especially inclined to care about that use case, but it’s out there.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t see distros doing omitting whole projects; however, more integrated products or services have already proven that they will be more selective.  IMHO, that’s the market giving us critical feedback and we should be careful in over fencing the market. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140912/3bcbbad5/attachment.html>