Open Stack

On 02/05/2016 02:41 PM, 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> Doug
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
I think we create problems for ourselves if we start equating the use of
the word no with punishment or penalty.

Sometimes no is a response that is chosen by one party for reasons
having nothing to do with punishment or penalty.

I think the two are separate.

Thank you,
Anita.