Open Stack

I agree with your comments and observations.

Thanks for taking the time to dig through it all!




On September 17, 2014 7:22:27 AM Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

> This feels like deja-vu, but I just spent some time reviewing the wrong
> version of these changes before finding the right one.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I think this document:
>
> Change-Pro Redline - 233015232-v15-OpenStackFoundation Bylaws FINAL (as 
> amended September 7, 2012) and 233015232-v24-OpenStackFoundation Bylaws FINAL
>
> is the one we should all be looking at. It shows the changes between the
> current bylaws (v15) and the latest proposed changes (v24). I would
> really like that document to be published somewhere that we can all
> easily refer to rather than it being forwarded around over email.
>
>
> The main thing that occurs to me is that I wonder why we're perpetuating
> this "Core OpenStack Project" term at all. I found this email from
> Jonathan extremely instructive:
>
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2014-June/001701.html
>
> The intent is of the "Core OpenStack Project" is to help define the
> requirements for commercial trademark usage, but we now have
> "capabilities" and "designated sections" to define that. The perception
> that the "Core" term creates is there is a subset of the Integrated
> Release that the board approves of, and by extension a subset that they
> disapprove of.
>
> If we now have a clear way of defining the requirements for trademark
> usage, I really don't understand why we're seeking to perpetuate the
> confusion and controversy created by the "Core OpenStack Project" term.
>
>
> As for removing the trademark policy from the bylaws, I see the policy
> as a high-level set of principles about how the trademarks should be
> managed and I'm fine with those principles requiring bylaws changes.
> However, specific implementation details of those principles (like the
> exact set of trademark programs) should determined by the board.
>
> In other words, if there are parts of the trademark policy which are
> "implementation details" which we feel should be determined by the
> board, why not just remove those details from the policy?
>
>
> More specific comments below.
>
> Mark.
>
> ---
>
> 4.1
>
>   - The Technical Committee is responsible for managing the OpenStack
>     Project, not simply the Integrated Release.
>
>   - I don't know that the sentence "the OpenStack Project shall include
>     the" is all that useful, and the new wording really doesn't clear up
>     any of the confusion it has caused.
>
>   - The whole "New Definition Date" thing is extremely awkward.
>
>   - This section has been a constant source of confusion and
>     controversy. I think the proposed changes are simply going to cause
>     more of the same. We should step back and think about what this
>     paragraph is attempting to get across. The proposed changes will not
>     eliminate the confusion and controversy.
>
>   - "The use of the OpenStack trademarks on the Core OpenStack Project
>     shall be defined in the Trademark Policy in Section 7.3." - I think
>     that overstates the purpose of the policy. The policy does little
>     more than define some high level principles and leaves the way open
>     for defining additional programs.
>
> 4.13
>
>   - In 4.13(c)(i) we're now requiring the TC to seek board approval
>     before removing certain capabilities/code from the Integrated
>     Release. I understand that the intent is to avoid poorly handling
>     the removal of parts of OpenStack which we see as critically
>     important, but I really think we need to trust the TC to manage
>     this correctly rather than requiring board sign-off. Imagine the
>     Nova v2 is communicated as deprecated for multiple cycles before it
>     is removed, and then the TC seeks approval for this in advance of
>     the release but the board refuses. Then what?
>
>   - Again, the whole "OSP New Definition Date" thing seems overly
>     involved.
>
> 4.15
>
>   - IMO, we should just remove the definition of the Legal Affairs
>     Committee from the bylaws. I don't see why it shouldn't be like any
>     other board subcommittee so that it can be evolved without bylaws
>     changes.
>
>   - The emphasis on the Integrated Release is weird/wrong here. What
>     was wrong with including the entire OpenStack Project in the remit
>     of the committee?
>
> 4.17
>
>   - Again, emphasizing the Integrated Release seems wrong.
>
> 7.1
>
>   - The "Project" to "Integrated Release" change here implies that the
>     Foundation may distribute software under a license other than the
>     Apache License 2.0. I doubt that's intentional.
>
> 7.3
>
>   - I'm not sure I see why the trademark policy needs to be determined
>     by the board. Again, we need the board to be able to determine the
>     "implementation details, but not the high level principles.
>
> Appendix 7
>
>   - "The OpenStack Integrated Release must have a CLA on file" makes no
>     sense.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee