Open Stack

Just to clear, I have nothing against Heat or Ceilometer calling themselves
OpenStack Orchestration and OpenStack Metering respectively.

What I am trying to understand is the current difference between core and
integrated projects and it doesn't sound like anybody knows.


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20131114/6d304c85/attachment.html>