Open Stack

I like that as well!

On Dec 7, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Catherine Cuong Diep <cdiep at us.ibm.com<mailto:cdiep at us.ibm.com>> wrote:


++ on using "OpenStack Powered (TM) Guidelines".  The name clearly articulates the goal and the originator of the guidelines.

Catherine Diep
----- Forwarded by Catherine Cuong Diep/San Jose/IBM on 12/07/2016 12:07 PM -----

From: Mark Voelker <mvoelker at vmware.com<mailto:mvoelker at vmware.com>>
To: Egle Sigler <ushnishtha at hotmail.com<mailto:ushnishtha at hotmail.com>>
Cc: "defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>" <defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: 12/07/2016 06:45 AM
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Interop - Guideline Rename Workstream

________________________________






> On Dec 6, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Egle Sigler <ushnishtha at hotmail.com<mailto:ushnishtha at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello Luz,
>
> Thank you for working on this! I think "OpenStack Interoperability Guidelines"

Likewise.  I also like the idea of providing a UI hint (a label, bold text, something) to make these a bit more distinct in the interface.


> or just "Interoperability Guidelines" would work, but I am also interested to hear what others think.

Another thought: the Guidelines the Interop WG produces ultimately determine a product's eligibility for the OpenStack Powered (TM) programs.  We could refer to them as "OpenStack Powered (TM) Guidelines" which would help folks be clear on the relationship between the two.

At Your Service,

Mark T. Voelker

>
> Thank you,
> Egle
>
>
> From: Cazares, Luz <luz.cazares at intel.com<mailto:luz.cazares at intel.com>>
> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 12:43 PM
> To: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [OpenStack-DefCore] Interop - Guideline Rename Workstream
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> As part of our rename work stream, we need a standard way to refer to the guidelines provided by this group.
>
> As we discussed in our last meeting [1]. "DefCore Guidelines" was a very specific name pointing to the guidelines from this group... so we need something at this level with the new name (not open to interpretation).
> Some ideas:
> *         OpenStack Interop Guidelines
> *         Interoperability Guidelines
> *         Interop WG Guidelines
> *         Add label "Oficial" to differentiate our guideline from any other custom interop guideline.
>
> Please let me know your comments, concerns or any question (if any).
>
> [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/defcore/2016/defcore.2016-11-30-16.00.log.txt
>
> Thanks, Regards
> Luz Cazares
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee

_______________________________________________
Defcore-committee mailing list
Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20161208/0fe69698/attachment.html>