Open Stack

Boris Renski wrote:
> So if I am interpreting this correctly, we are doing away with the
> concept of Core entirely until after the interop work is done? 
> 
> Otherwise, I am a bit unclear as to the difference between "integrated"
> and "core" at this point? 

I fear that the term "core" is way too overloaded at this point to be
used in any useful context. Like Mark said there are two different
trademark concepts, both of which are using the term "core". The first
one is:

>> 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.

That one is designated as "The Core OpenStack project" in the bylaws, a
list maintained by the secretary, recommended by the technical
committee, and approved by the BoD. It is what the recent TC resolution
was about.

>> 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.

This one is the effort around trademark usage and interop, and it's also
using the "core" term (as in: "the 'what is core' spider").

So I'm not sure we can do away with the concept of core entirely until
the interop work is done... but we could certainly stop using that same
confusing term for both things.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)