Open Stack

On 07/11/2013 12:39 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 07/10/2013 02:53 PM, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
>>> Background info: https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2013-SpiderDiscussion
>>
>> This is the first time I've seen this.  I must admit that my initial
>> reaction is that I'm not comfortable with the direction this seems to be
>> taking.
>>
>> I understand the need to have a solid definition of what "core" means.
>> I also assume that the goal here is to eventually arrive at some set of
>> definitions and policies.
>>
>> However, some of the specific items discussed on this etherpad are
>> things that are in my opinion, in TC (or even project specific
>> governance) territory, and should be considered out of scope for any
>> policy coming from the board.
> 
> This is new to me too, but AFAICT it's an effort to define the list of
> criteria the board intends to apply for granting the "core" label on a
> given project.
> 
> We ruled that the TC was free to produce the stuff it wanted, and that
> the board was free to apply a "core" label to a subset of that. they are
> also free to define what they mean by "core" (or any other label they
> may want to create).
> 
> As an example:
> 
>> * In the introduction, the secondary issue identified is whether
>> projects should be pluggable.  I believe this is TC territory.
> 
> If they want to grant the "core" label only to pluggable projects, I'm
> not sure that would be in our territory ?

No, I believe Russell is correct, and I'm sorry I did not catch/raise
this earlier. The reason we have a board/tc split is separation of
specialty. It is not expected that people on the board have the
technical background to make technical decisions, it is conversely not
expected that members of the TC have the business/legal background to
make decisions on issues around brand or trademark. That some of us on
the board have technical backgrounds is a thing I think we must be
vigilant about and not forget the role we have been asked to play on
that body. In that regard, I believe I have failed at the moment.

The split between integrated and core is similarly intended to let the
technical body decide about implementation issues and let the board make
decisions on the *what*, as Russel says. While the language may
theoretically allow the board to apply whatever criteria it wants to to
grant the core label, I think it's very important we don't create a
shadow TC of folks making additional technical judgment calls and using
trademark to enforce them. It's not an us vs. them thing - it's quite
simply a scope-of-body-of-people thing. If both bodies have 'final' say
on a technical matter but with a different label, no one anywhere is
going to be able to figure out what the heck OpenStack is.

Back to the matter at hand, I think Doug's suggestions move in the
direction of where the language should go.

"The cloud must pass the automated test suite designated by the TC as
defining interoperability"

both states an outcome the board wants to see, and lets the TC decide.
I'd even remove the word 'automated' - although I'm _certain_ that the
TC would want it to be automated and not manual. That sentence above is
actually quite similar to one that's in our current trademark policy, btw.