Open Stack

On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andreas Jaeger" <aj at suse.com>
>> To: "Mark McLoughlin" <markmc at redhat.com>, "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Cc: "Jonathan Bryce" <jonathan at openstack.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:17:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-docs] Conventions on naming
>> 
>> On 02/05/2014 01:09 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:52 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>> Steve Gordon wrote:
>>>>>> From: "Anne Gentle" <anne.gentle at rackspace.com>
>>>>>> Based on today's Technical Committee meeting and conversations with the
>>>>>> OpenStack board members, I need to change our Conventions for service
>>>>>> names
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Conventions#Service_and_project_names
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Previously we have indicated that Ceilometer could be named OpenStack
>>>>>> Telemetry and Heat could be named OpenStack Orchestration. That's not
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> case, and we need to change those names.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To quote the TC meeting, ceilometer and heat are "other modules" (second
>>>>>> sentence from 4.1 in
>>>>>> http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/)
>>>>>> distributed with the Core OpenStack Project.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Here's what I intend to change the wiki page to:
>>>>>> Here's the list of project and module names and their official names
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> capitalization:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ceilometer module
>>>>>> Cinder: OpenStack Block Storage
>>>>>> Glance: OpenStack Image Service
>>>>>> Heat module
>>>>>> Horizon: OpenStack dashboard
>>>>>> Keystone: OpenStack Identity Service
>>>>>> Neutron: OpenStack Networking
>>>>>> Nova: OpenStack Compute
>>>>>> Swift: OpenStack Object Storage
>>>> 
>>>> Small correction. The TC had not indicated that Ceilometer could be
>>>> named "OpenStack Telemetry" and Heat could be named "OpenStack
>>>> Orchestration". We formally asked[1] the board to allow (or disallow)
>>>> that naming (or more precisely, that use of the trademark).
>>>> 
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names
>>>> 
>>>> We haven't got a formal and clear answer from the board on that request
>>>> yet. I suspect they are waiting for progress on DefCore before deciding.
>>>> 
>>>> If you need an answer *now* (and I suspect you do), it might make sense
>>>> to ask foundation staff/lawyers about using those OpenStack names with
>>>> the current state of the bylaws and trademark usage rules, rather than
>>>> the hypothetical future state under discussion.
>>> 
>>> Basically, yes - I think having the Foundation confirm that it's
>>> appropriate to use "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs is the right thing.
>>> 
>>> There's an awful lot of confusion about the subject and, ultimately,
>>> it's the Foundation staff who are responsible for enforcing (and giving
>>> advise to people on) the trademark usage rules. I've cc-ed Jonathan so
>>> he knows about this issue.
>>> 
>>> But FWIW, the TC's request is asking for Ceilometer and Heat to be
>>> allowed use their "Telemetry" and "Orchestration" names in *all* of the
>>> circumstances where e.g. Nova is allowed use its "Compute" name.
>>> 
>>> Reading again this clause in the bylaws:
>>> 
>>>  "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but
>>>   not the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the
>>>   OpenStack trademark except when distributed with the Core OpenStack
>>>   Project."
>>> 
>>> it could well be said that this case of naming conventions in the docs
>>> for the entire OpenStack Project falls under the "distributed with" case
>>> and it is perfectly fine to refer to "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs.
>>> I'd really like to see the Foundation staff give their opinion on this,
>>> though.

In this case, we are talking about documentation that is produced and distributed with the integrated release to cover the Core OpenStack Project and the “modules" that are distributed together with the Core OpenStack Project in the integrated release. This is the intended use case for the exception Mark quoted above from the Bylaws, and I think it is perfectly fine to refer to the integrated components in the OpenStack release documentation as OpenStack components.


>> What Steve is asking IMO is whether we have to change "OpenStack
>> Telemetry" to "Ceilometer module" or whether we can just say "Telemetry"
>> without the OpenStack in front of it,
>> 
>> Andreas
> 
> Constraining myself to the topic of what we should be using in the documentation, yes this is what I'm asking. This makes more sense to me than switching to calling them the "Heat module" and "Ceilometer module" because:
> 
> 1) It resolves the issue of using the OpenStack mark where it (apparently) shouldn't be used.
> 2) It means we're still using the "formal" name for the program as defined by the TC [1] (it is my understanding this remains the purview of the TC, it's control of the mark that the board are exercising here).
> 3) It is a more minor change/jump and therefore provides more continuity and less confusion to readers (and similarly if one of them ever becomes endorsed as core and we need to switch again).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml


It’s possible that in the future the Board may adjust the language to be explicitly more restrictive. In that case, I would agree with Steve that it would still make sense to still use the approved generic names on their own without the mark in the documentation rather than the codenames.

Jonathan