Open Stack

On 14:41 Feb 05, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2016-02-05 12:27:44 -0600:
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > So, is Poppy "open core"?
> > >
> > 
> > It doesn't follow the 'spirit' of open core, but it does have some of the
> > characteristics, in that the open code is not all that useful, or maybe
> > even testable, without the commercial component(s) (at this time).
> > 
> > So while Poppy may not fully qualify for the open core label, it still
> > fails some of the tests that we want to see, such as a usable open source
> > implementation.
> > 
> > dt
> > 
> 
> Testability is certainly an issue. There are ways to deal with the
> limitations, though. Is it any different from the other third-party
> CI we support for hardware drivers? Maybe it means no project wants
> to rely on Poppy because there's no way to set up integration tests.
> That's OK. We have other projects that don't have dependencies.

Yes it is different. Because the other examples like Cinder is there is an open
source solution that is available that could potentionally do the feature
proposed by a commercial solution, and therefore can be tested by anyone who
wants to install the free solution, in addition to see the results by third
party ci logs. (I say it this way because we haven't been good about making
sure certain features are available by ceph. Some are just impossible in the
reference implementation LVM)

> I'm not comfortable separating the intent aspect of the definition
> of "open core" from the effect. We set rules for the community to
> codify the culture and to discourage bad behavior. Nothing the Poppy
> team has done qualifies as bad behavior. What is the point of
> penalizing them with a strict interpretation of a rule meant to
> address a different problem?

As I've mentioned in previous replies of this thread it's about how the
community can test a project. If we have to depend on a commercial entity to do
tests on the main features of a project, I see that as a problem.

I'm with Sean where I see this as not fitting with what the community is trying
to bring in based on what the TC has set in the governance, and what has
already been raised in this discussion.

-- 
Mike Perez