Open Stack

> On 9 June 2014 09:44, Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Since "certification" seems to be quite an overloaded term
> > already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as
> > "quality assured" better capture the Cinder project's use of
> > the word?
> >
> > It does exactly what it says on the tin ... i.e. captures the
> > fact that a vendor has run an agreed battery of tests against
> > their driver and the harness has reported green-ness with a
> > meaning that is well understood upstream (as the Tempest test
> > cases are in the public domain).
> 
> 
> I think 'quality-assured' makes a far stronger statement than
> 'certified'.

Hmmm, what kind of statement is made by the title of the program
under which the Tempest harness falls:

  https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/programs.yaml#L247

The purpose of Quality Assurance is to assure quality, no?

So essentially anything that passes such QA tests, has had its
quality assured in a well-understood sense?

> 'Certified' indicated that some configuration has been
> shown to work for for some set of feature, and some organisation is
> attesting to the fact that is true. This is /exactly/ what the cinder
> team is attesting to, and this program was bought in
> _because_a_large_number_of_drivers_didn't_work_in_the_slightest_.
> Since it is the cinder team who are going to get up fielding support
> for cinder code, and the cinder team who's reputation is on the line
> over the quality of cinder code, I think we are exactly the people who
> can design a certification program, and that is exactly what we have
> done.

Sure, no issue at all with the Cinder team being best placed to
judge what works and what doesn't in terms of Cinder backends.

Just gently suggesting that due to the terminology-overload, it
might be wise to choose a term with fewer connotations.

Cheers,
Eoghan