Open Stack

OK.  So, our naming is like branding.  We are techies -- not good at marketing.  But, gee, the foundation has a marketing team.  And they end up fielding a lot of the confusing questions from companies not deeply entrenched in the OpenStack Dev culture.  Perhaps it would be worth explaining what we are trying to do to the marketing team and let them suggest some branding words.

What we would need to do pretty much goes back to Chris and Gord's emails about answering the questions of what we mean by "Openstack Project" and  "projects we allow to use our infrastructure in pursuit of something that somehow works with OpenStack projects".  If we provide marketing with a solid definition of what is an OpenStack project (we have that one down fairly well, but they might ask about core or other things we haven't debated in a while), and provide them with what those other projects have in common besides being hosted by us, they might come up with something that works for them and is ok for us.  Remember, they get hit with it a lot more than we do at this point.

So what we need is:

* detailed definition of "OpenStack Project" (maybe based on answering those questions Chris proposed plus others)
* good definition of what the "others" hosted on our infrastructure are/are expected to be
* removal of "big tent" from everywhere (aside/non sequitur -- There was a doge of Venice that got deposed for treason and his visage and name were eradicated from all buildings, documents, etc.  He also happened to be the inventor of the chastity belt)
* introduce the marketing guys to the definitions and the branding issue
* call in OpenStack projects and Others until we have a reasonable brand for Others.

--Rocky 

Thierry Carrez Wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept:
> >> "OpenStack-Hosted projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on
> >> one side, and "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the
> >> other side (all still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).
> >
> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
> > opposite?
> 
> Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused about
> which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The confusion led
> to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an openstack project.
> It led to the perception that "big tent" means "anything goes in" or "flea
> market".
> 
> Whether we like it or not, giving a name to that category, a name that people
> can refer to (not "projects under openstack infrastructure that are not
> officially recognized by the TC"), is I think the only way out of this confusion.
> 
> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are deep
> enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through that.
> But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused, and needs
> help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to do that.
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)