Open Stack

On 08/12/15 13:26 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>On 12/08/2015 01:03 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 12/08/2015 12:46 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2015 05:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>> Chris Hoge wrote:
>>>>> [...] The DefCore
>>>>> committee would like to bring this topic for formal discussion to the
>>>>> next TC meeting on December 8 to get input from TC on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Added to next week agenda.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to lay out my thoughts here, because they are slightly more
>>> wordy and I'm sure as much as people enjoy me typing furiously in TC
>>> meetings, it might be nice to read them in a structured manner.
>>
>> Thanks for writing this up.  I agree with you.
>>
>> I'd like to see the TC issue an official resolution on this topic if we
>> can reach some reasonable consensus.

Happy to help here!

>
>I'm very much in agreement with Monty's points, and have commented
>similarly on the defcore review.

Yes! I've also expressed this in my comment on the defcore review.

>
>One of the common counters to that point of view I've heard in bringing
>this up in conversations recently is "but interop isn't really important
>for private cloud, people just want a thing that works for them". i.e.
>this is irrelevant for trademarks for products primarily targeted at
>private cloud.
>
>To which my response is:
>
>1) it is relevant. A cloud that is "OpenStack" means that you will be
>able to get an off the shelf tool that runs on "OpenStack" and it should
>work. Diverging from compatibility means that you lose access to this
>channel of tools.

Exactly! I don't want to generalize but I will. Ppl saying that
interoperability is not important for private clouds don't really know
how important interoperability is for private clouds. The lack of
need does not mean it is not required (the lack of evidence blah blah
blah).

Interoperability *is* important and it plays a huge role when ppl pick
OpenStack over other solutions. It represents an extra cost we have to
pay, sure, but the benefits are higher than the cost of preserving it,
IMHO.

>
>2) if this kind of compatibility isn't relevant to you, you don't need
>to get the OpenStack trademark. The code is Apache2, and you can build
>any interesting thing you want out of it, remixed to your hearts
>content. It doesn't mean that the resultant thing is OpenStack (tm).

I guess but again, #1 is the right answer here. 


Cheers,
Flavio

>
>	-Sean
>
>-- 
>Sean Dague
>http://dague.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-TC mailing list
>OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco