Open Stack

Yes.

Also, there are two trademark concepts being mixed here.

1)
*Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as "OpenStack Orchestration"?  
Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a done deal and we are already doing it in practice. And its covered under the bylaws once they are included in the integrated release by TC vote. There is no need for further action.

2)
*Must* a commercial product or service branded "OpenStack" use heat or ceilometer or project X from the integrated release?  This is the work underway.

If the TC resolution was concerning #1 then I don't believe it was necessary. If #2, there is work being done on that but its definitely worth discussing in various forums.

One thing to note is that #1 is in a broader non commercial context such as project teams communicating about their work, and #2 is about commercial branding of products and services which fall under trademark licenses signed by corporations branding their products "OpenStack".  They are not the same thing but are often conflated accidentally. That said, if they are too divergent in practice it is likely to be confusing for the market as a whole.

I have plenty of opinions on where we should be headed on all of these topics but will save those for another post. This one is aimed at sharing some relevant facts. 




On Nov 14, 2013 7:29 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/14/2013 03:24 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: 
> > Joshua McKenty wrote: 
> >> Thierry, I'll make sure this motion lands on the agenda for discussion 
> >> at the next board meeting. I don't see a gerritt entry for that motion, 
> >> though - where is the vote recorded? 
> > 
> > The review is at: 
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55375/ 
> > 
> > The votes also appear on the git notes for the commit: 
> > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/commit/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names?id=493e7c65cfbd3bd75409c84d089f57f4aab88da4 
> > 
> > (TC members vote using +2/-2, everyone else can voice their opinion by 
> > voting +1/-1) 
> > 
> >> Since I have grave concerns about the use of the term OpenStack in 
> >> relationship to either of these projects (in either of the two forms of 
> >> the term "core" that you've referenced), I imagine it will be, as usual, 
> >> a lively debate. 
> > 
> > Agreed :) I personally think that this resolution reflects the current 
> > usage on the technical side: we traditionally start calling projects 
> > "OpenStack X" once they are integrated (for example, we've been calling 
> > Heat "OpenStack Orchestration" in the Havana release announcement). So 
> > it is the TC recommendation that this usage is actually allowed. 
> > 
> > In all cases clarification for that grey area is definitely desirable... 
> > for the current projects and to set expectations right for the ones 
> > coming up. 
>
> I look forward to the lively debate! 
>
> I think it's important to frame a specific part of it. Heat and 
> Ceilometer are part of OpenStack. That part has happened, it's a fait 
> acompli. The TC decided that as part of the community-based meritocracy 
> governance, which is how questions of what goes in the software are 
> decided. Contributions to the projects convey ATC status and qualify 
> contributors to vote on TC elections. They get summit tracks. They are 
> considered available to be depended on by other OpenStack projects. We 
> shipped them in the release. 
>
> I think the board attempting to say that they are not, in fact, a part 
> of OpenStack would be a vast overstepping of boundaries. Anyone on the 
> board who is unhappy with the TC's decisions on that matter is welcome 
> to join the decision making process - it's open to everyone, and we're 
> pretty friendly. But we never have and as long as I can help it never 
> will have a technical decision made by our ATCs overridden by folks on 
> the business side. 
>
> Now, whether or not use by people of the OpenStack mark should require 
> either project is the basis of the current work by the interop 
> committee. Even if other parts of OpenStack develop hard-depends on heat 
> and ceilometer existing, that does not mean that their APIs have to be 
> in the keystone service catalog, so it's completely within the board's 
> domain to decide that a cloud that does not provide a heat endpoint can 
> still call itself an openstack cloud - and I THOROUGHLY look forward to 
> that debate! 
>
> _______________________________________________ 
> Foundation-board mailing list 
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org 
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board