Open Stack

On 11/14/2013 08:58 AM, mark at openstack.org wrote:
> 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.

The TC resolution is absolutely concerning #1. Basically, the bylaws
section has a mention of the secretary maintaining a list of projects -
so I think what we're doing is formally informing the board so that the
secretary can update the list.

> 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.
> 

Thanks Mark! I believe you said what I was trying to communicate in a
much clearer and less confrontational manner. Can you just talk for me?

> 
> 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
>> 
>