Open Stack

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>>> On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane
>>>> thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification" is
>>>> necessary to achieve your goals.
>>>
>>> What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At
>>> least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in
>>> your testing.
>>>
>>> That's *exactly* what certification means.
>>
>> I disagree. I think the word has substantially more connotations than
>> simply "this has been tested".
>>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html
>
> I agree with Mark (and Anita's original rationale) that the "certified"
> term conveys a level of guarantee we, as an open source project, can't
> really back. Using softer terminology ("tested", "CI tested"...) is
> therefore preferable.
>
> I also don't buy the argument that "others" would abuse that terminology
> if we didn't occupy it ourselves. The only body that could efficiently
> "certify" would be the Board of Directors of the OpenStack Foundation,
> setting up some official certification program backed with the trademark
> usage. Anyone else would just "certify" under their own, independent,
> non-OpenStack program. I don't think us using that terminology would
> prevent them from doing that anyway. As long as the board makes sure the
> trademark is not abused in such 3rd-party "certification" programs, I
> think we are ok...
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)

+1

Doug