[legal-discuss] [Fwd: [OpenStack-DefCore] Revised Bylaws]

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Sun Apr 13 19:38:40 UTC 2014


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.html

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 at wikimedia.org>
> To: "Mark McLoughlin" <markmc at redhat.com>
> Cc: legal-discuss at 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 at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hey
> >
> > I figure these proposed amendments are relevant to this list too.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > From: Radcliffe, Mark <Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com>
> > > To: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> > > Cc: Eileen Evans Esq. (eileen.evans at hp.com) <eileen.evans at hp.com>,
> > > defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > > <defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>, Roay, Leslie
> > > <Leslie.Roay at 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 at dlapiper.com. Thank you.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Defcore-committee mailing list
> > > Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal-discuss mailing list
> > legal-discuss at 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.*
> 



More information about the legal-discuss mailing list