Open Stack

Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
> There appears to be confusion about programs vs. projects.  I’ve talked
> to Jonathan and Mark about this and their explanation aligns with what
> Josh said that DefCore.
> 
> It appears that we’ve got several trademark programs (OpenStack Compute,
> OpenStack Network, etc) that can use the OpenStack trademarks.  This
> seems very clear to me.

Programs are actually teams focused on a technical effort that's been
recognized as an integral part of producing "OpenStack".
"Infrastructure" or "QA" are examples of programs.

The confusion starts when a program is centered around producing a given
part of the OpenStack integrated release. For example the "Compute"
program is centered around producing OpenStack Compute (Nova).

> We also have projects that are members of the programs.  For example,
> Nova is a member of OpenStack Compute.  In this approach, the direction
> matters.  Nova is a member of OpenStack Compute.  OpenStack Compute is
> NOT Nova, it is an umbrella program.  There could be multiple members of
> the program.

We haven't had the case yet of a program that would produce several
integrated pieces, and therefore potentially need multiple official
OpenStack names. So we can definitely take this approach.

To illustrate, let's take the completely hypothetical case where the
"Telemetry" program (which produces OpenStack Telemetry project
Ceilometer) would produce a new component handling billing (codenamed
"ShowMeTheMoney") and get that through incubation and integrated in the
release. We would not call that one "OpenStack Billing
(ShowMeTheMoney)", and rename the program Telemetry/Billing. We would
call that project "OpenStack Telemetry project ShowMeTheMoney".

Is that what you had in mind ?

> Having this definition understood and accepted helps us move forward on
> DefCore because it take some of the core & trademark pressure off code
> related projects.  For example, we’re not worried about trademark for
> Project Nova.  It’s OpenStack™ Compute Project Nova which is part of the
> integrated release.

Yes. And when an established program wishes to get one of its projects
integrated, one task they have during incubation should be to clarify
the potential trademark issues around the program name before it is
exposed as part of the official product name.

> If this is correct, the we really should not be renaming programs based
> on member functionality.  We also should not be saying the a project IS
> a program.

That's the corollary, yes. FWIW most programs already produce multiple
"deliverables": the Compute program for example produces Nova and
python-novaclient. So we already distinguish between the project
(technical deliverable) and the program (team/goal).

> I think this is pretty simple, but last week was the first time I’d
> personally heard it articulated as clearly. 
> 
> I’m raising this here so we can discuss it if there’s disagreement about
> this and help clarify it for others.

I CCed the Technical Committee to make sure everyone is on the same page
there.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)