Open Stack

I believe the part of the thing Jonathan was referencing that the TC is
talking about is the final line of 4.1(b):

"The Secretary shall maintain a list of the modules in the Core
OpenStack Project which shall be posted on the Foundation’s website."

Which led us to believe that we needed to suggest that the secretary
update the list of modules so that heat and ceilometer could use the naming.

However, I believe that Jonathan has clarified that this is not
necessary and the both of them are already allowed to use that naming
because they are part of the integrated release. This does not make them
"Core" - but they do not need to be core in order to accomplish the
thing the TC was asking about.

SO - I think everyone's intent is in line, and we needed clarity on the
actions actually needed.

On 11/14/2013 12:56 PM, Boris Renski wrote:
> OK, I am totally confused then. 
> 
> If per bylaws any integrated project can called itself "OpenStack Blah"
> then we return to the question of current difference between integrated
> and core. It seems like there is no alignment. Jonathan's opinion
> contradicts Thierry's. 
> 
> Perhaps, we should all just agree that there is no difference until
> after the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of
> tests? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Bryce <jbryce at jbryce.com
> <mailto:jbryce at jbryce.com>> wrote:
> 
>     To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b)
>     (http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/):
> 
>     "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not
>     the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack
>     trademark except when distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."
> 
>     In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is
>     another way of saying "distributed with the integrated release.”
>     Since Heat and Ceilometer are part of the integrated release
>     starting with Havana, as voted on by the TC, the projects (a.k.a.
>     "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic name, such
>     as  "OpenStack Orchestration," without being added to the "Core"
>     list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not distributed as
>     part of the integrated release could not as they don’t meet the
>     exception in the sentence above.
> 
>     To provide some context from the drafting process when this was
>     written, the intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly
>     approved by the Board as part of the Core OpenStack Project which
>     would be useful for determining interop and commercial product and
>     service trademark usage. This is along the lines of the “spider”
>     work that has been going on. The exception in the sentence quoted
>     above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that
>     included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit
>     to be developed, released and distributed as part of the total set
>     of OpenStack software, but that may not have the universal
>     applicability of a module of the Core OpenStack Project that became
>     a required component for commercial trademark use.
> 
>     Jonathan
> 
> 
>     On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski <brenski at mirantis.com
>     <mailto:brenski at mirantis.com>> wrote:
> 
>     > In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD
>     passes the resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack
>     Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an
>     integrated project called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
>     >
>     > Am I getting it right?
>     >
>     >
>     > > *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.
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez
>     <thierry at openstack.org <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
>     > Boris Renski wrote:
>     > > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the
>     difference
>     > > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said,
>     but it
>     > > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.
>     >
>     > Well, no.
>     >
>     > "Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
>     > every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.
>     >
>     > "The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
>     > projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends
>     that
>     > it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may
>     decide
>     > to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).
>     >
>     > And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".
>     >
>     > So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and
>     one of
>     > the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far
>     > as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.
>     >
>     > --
>     > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Foundation-board mailing list
>     > Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org>
>     > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Foundation-board mailing list
>     Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>