Open Stack

Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 12:50 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> Though I'm not entirely clear on your opinion on the future of "core".
>> You acknowledge that it has importance to the board for the purposes of
>> trademark enforcement.  Is that something that we (the TC) should just
>> push off to the board to handle?  Or should the TC still be involved in
>> that?  If so, to what degree?
> 
> Yes, I'm saying I don't believe it serves the technical community any
> purpose in differentiating something called "core" from something that
> isn't "core". If the BoD or biz-dev/product folks want to do that, so be
> it, but I just don't think it behooves the folks working on a
> coordinated release to be picking these winners and losers when it comes
> to inclusion in the OpenStack community development and release process.

+1

It also allows a clear delineation between what's in the realm of the TC
(deciding which projects are ready and useful enough to be included in a
same release cycle for a final coordinated release), and what's in the
realm of the Board of Directors (applying labels to individual projects
to be able to build trademark usage rules about them).

If, as the TC, we give advice on what projects should be applied which
label, it's unclear where the responsibility falls. Note: if we accept
that it's a BoD thing, that doesn't mean we, as individual members of
the Foundation, abandon all opinion on it: we can still influence the
board, post on the Foundation ML, and lobby our individual member
directors so that they reflect our personal opinion on it. But from a
governance standpoint, I think it's beneficial if the TC, as a
governance body, stays within what is clearly its domain: handling the
OpenStack development community.

Cheers,

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee