Open Stack

On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 23:06 -0600, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> The current difference in implementation is that to be part of the
> Core OpenStack Project, a module must receive Board approval to be in
> that set. Another intended difference is that the Core OpenStack
> Project definition would be used as a means of collecting the projects
> for various trademark licensing and interop requirements. That part of
> the implementation is still in progress with the ongoing work of the
> Board.
> 
> The Bylaws were drafted to take into account the expected direction
> that these initiatives were going to move based off the drafting
> meetings we had last year, and they included some “forward looking”
> provisions like this. Same thing with the FITS testing piece of the
> trademark licenses that gives the TC the right to approve a test suite
> for usage.

So, to my question of the intent of the difference between "Core
OpenStack Project" and Integrated ...

You're saying the intent was not about:

  1) *Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as
  "OpenStack Orchestration"?

but rather it was intended to be solely about:

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

Am I understand you correctly?

If so, I think we have a bunch of work to do to clarify the bylaws ...
because I think those of us on the TC side who read the bylaws and tried
to divine the intent came to the conclusion it was entirely about (1)
and *nothing* to do with (2).

Mark.