Thank you Chris! We will be discussing these programs in our next weekly meeting, on Wednesday, August 16th, 11:00 AM CST/ 16:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting-3. Join us if you would like to be part of the discussion, and reviews are very welcome!
Thank you, Egle ________________________________ From: Chris Hoge <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 5:30 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][interop][heat][designate] Proposed updates to OpenStack Powered trademarks: extensions and verticals > On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Chris Hoge <[email protected]> wrote: > > At the upcoming board meeting in September, the Interop Working Group > will be proposing a new trademark program to supplement the OpenStack > Powered mark. This update formally defines two distinct types of programs. > > 1) Platforms. This captures the three existing trademarks, OpenStack > Powered Compute, OpenStack Powered Storage, and OpenStack Powered > Platform. A platform can be thought of as a complete collection of > OpenStack software to give a core set of functionality. For example, > OpenStack Powered Storage provides Swift Object Storage and Horizon Correction to above: Swift and Keystone. Horizon is not required > Identity. Compute offers Nova, Horizon, Glance, Cinder and Neutron. Correction to the above: Nova, Keystone, Glance, Cinder, and Neutron. Horizon is not required. > > We are generalizing the idea of platforms to be able to capture other > verticals within the OpenStack ecosystem. For example, we are currently > working with NFV leaders to potentially build out an OpenStack Powered > NFV guideline that could be used in a future trademark program. > > 2) Extensions. This captures projects that provide additional > functionality to platforms, but require certain core services to be > available. The intent is for an OpenStack Powered cloud to be able to > advertise interoperable capabilities that would be nice for users to > have but aren't strictly required for general interoperability. The > first two extensions we are focusing on are Heat Orchestration and > Designate DNS. If a public cloud were offering the Designate API, > they could qualify to present themselves as "OpenStack Powered Platform > with DNS". > > We are seeking advisory status from the board at the September board > meeting, with a goal to launch the new extension programs after the > January board meeting. The Interop Working Group would also like to > work with the TC on encouraging more projects to adopt the Interop > Working Group schema to define what public-facing interfaces and code > should be present for a deployed instance of that project to qualify > as interoperable. > > If you would like to see the new extension programs, I have reviews > up for both Heat and Designate. > > Heat: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490648/ Gerrit Code Review<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490648/> review.openstack.org ID: Subject: Status: Owner: Project: Branch: Updated: Size: CR: V: W: 491096: Add unit tests for dns_domain for ports > Designate: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/492635/ Gerrit Code Review<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/492635/> review.openstack.org ID: Subject: Status: Owner: Project: Branch: Updated: Size: CR: V: W: 491096: Add unit tests for dns_domain for ports > > The new interop guideline schema format is also ready to be presented > to the board: > > 2.0 schema documentation: > > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/interop/tree/doc/source/schema/2.0.rst > 2.0 schema example: > > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/interop/tree/doc/source/schema/next.2.0.json > > The review for the 2.0 schema (merged): > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430556/ Gerrit Code Review<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430556/> review.openstack.org ID: Subject: Status: Owner: Project: Branch: Updated: Size: CR: V: W: 491096: Add unit tests for dns_domain for ports > > If you are the PTL of a project that would like to be considered for an > extension trademark program, please don't hesitate to reach out to me or > any other member of the Interop Working Group. > > We're pretty excited about how we're planning on extending the trademark > program next year, and are looking forward to working with the developer > community to help guarantee the interoperability of OpenStack clouds > through testing and trademark compliance. > > Thanks! > > Chris Hoge > Interop Engineer > OpenStack Foundation > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev openstack-dev mailing list - lists.openstack.org Mailing Lists<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> lists.openstack.org This list for the developers of OpenStack to discuss development issues and roadmap. It is focused on the next release of OpenStack: you should post on this list if ... __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev openstack-dev mailing list - lists.openstack.org Mailing Lists<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> lists.openstack.org This list for the developers of OpenStack to discuss development issues and roadmap. It is focused on the next release of OpenStack: you should post on this list if ...
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
