Open Stack

Hi Anne,
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 08:17 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> Okay, thanks Mark for giving us some good food for thought. I would
> like to propose a different set of 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the
> "direction motion" for us to consider. The first two paragraphs are
> great.
> 
> ---
> 
> We see Incubation as a category for projects who would like to have a
> trial period to share resources and integrate with other OpenStack
> projects. While we as a technical committee need time to evaluate
> projects for inclusion in the OpenStack shared resource set (for
> example, release management, integrated testing and releases,
> continuous integration, documentation, Summit discussion time, and so
> on),

I think this is what we all understand Incubation to be about and it's
not really up for debate with the Board.

>  there should be an end-result for an Incubation period to result
> in a final destination that is not related to all the current
> privileges given to Core projects.

I think this is the bit where you're really trying to make a different
proposal, but I don't fully understand it.

My motion basically says that the end-resource of Incubation is "part of
the OpenStack releases" or "not part of the OpenStack releases".

What other end-result do you see?

> We see trademark privileges as unrelated of the day-to-day work needed
> to create and maintain related, integrated OpenStack projects. Because
> trademark is irrelevant to the other privileges given to a Core
> project, having the term "Core OpenStack Project" in section 4.1.b of
> the bylaws related to trademark is unnecessary.

I don't think we're really differing, but the point I'm trying to
emphasize with:

  We see the term "Core OpenStack Project" in section 4.1.b of the  
  bylaws as being solely related to trademark guidelines. The Foundation
  should simply maintain a list of projects required for trademark 
  usage. We would be happy for that list to be called "Core Projects" 
  or for a new name to be chosen to describe that list.

is that "yes, you the Foundation Board need a list of projects required
for trademark usage" but that we (the TC) don't need to be a part of
maintaining that list nor do we care what the list is called.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we're to vote on two different
motions, it needs to be really clear where the motions differ beyond
just wording.

Cheers,
Mark.