Looks great! A few comments inline. N On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Shanley Kane <shanley.k...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
> Open Cloud Initiative Certification Procedure for Products and Services > > The OCI review process enables the community of cloud computing users and > providers to apply the requirements for Open Cloud, as described in the Open > Cloud Principles document, to products and services via open and transparent > discussion. Through the review process, products and services can be > determined by the community to satisfy open cloud principles and thus > approved to use the Open Cloud Initiative certification mark. Do we want [anyone in] the community determining who's approved to use the OCI mark? Or only anyone who has participated in the OCI Certification process (even though that's open to anyone, I see these as different). Perhaps "assessed by the community as satisfying" or "determined to satisfy open cloud principles [as] recognized by the community"? > Guidelines: > > Any member of the cloud computing community may submit a product or service > for review. > Any member of the cloud computing community is invited to participate in > community discussion via the OCI Certification mailing list. > The OCI review process is specifically focused on applying the > community-derived Open Cloud Principles, constituting the existing community > definition of open cloud, to products and services. Evolutions to the Open > Cloud Principles themselves are subject to a separate community consensus > process. "Evolutions of" or "Changes to" sounds better to me. > Purpose of the Process: > > Certify products and services as meeting existing community standards for > open cloud, as defined in the Open Cloud Principles document. > Provide a framework for the cloud community to contribute to the application > of the Open Cloud Principles. > Promote adoption of the Open Cloud Principles via open and transparent > discourse and community processes. > Enable Open Cloud certification review of products and services to take > place in a timely fashion (no more than 90 days). > > > Submitting a Product or Service for OCI Certification: > > Familiarize yourself with the Open Cloud Principles and subscribe to the > Certification mailing list. > Complete and submit the template (below) to the Certification mailing list. > Submissions will be posted publicly on the OCI list archive. > The community is invited to discuss the submitted product or service on the > Certification mailing list. Discussion will be open for at least 30 days and > will not exceed 60 days. > The Certification Committee will review community discussion and create a > summary and recommendation, submitted to the OCI Board and the Certification > mailing list. > The OCI Board will consider the product or service at the next monthly > meeting of the board. The board may request additional information from the > community before proceeding. If no additional information is required, the > board will vote on certification. A quorum of the board must be reached in > favor of certifying the product or service in order for the vote to pass. > The Certification Committee will report back to the Certification List with > the decision and a summary of any board discussion. If the Certification did > not pass, another party may re-submit the product or service if changes or > alterations to it, or the Open Cloud Principles themselves, would merit > redress. Redress sounds to me like we've done people wrong. How about "review" (or "further review")? >If Certification is approved, the product or service in question > will be approved to use the Open Cloud logo and will be displayed as such on > the Open Cloud Initiative website. Something here about how we can take away the certification if a product/service changes--at least that such a thing is allowed for, even if the process isn't yet decided? > How does the product or service use Open Standard formats to represent user > data and mata data? s/mata/meta/ > Please attach any supporting technical documentation not available on the > open internet. "open internet" sounds weird to me in this context. How about "not otherwise available on the internet"? (Since this stuff is going in our archive on the internet, right?) Or "not publicly available on the internet" (if our archive is intended to be kept private--if so, we should say something about who will have access. Noirin
