On 02/06/2014 07:42 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Steve Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Andreas Jaeger" <[email protected]>
>>>> To: "Mark McLoughlin" <[email protected]>, "OpenStack Development Mailing
>>>> List (not for usage questions)"
>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: "Jonathan Bryce" <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:17:39 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-docs] Conventions on naming
>>>>
>>>> On 02/05/2014 01:09 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:52 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Gordon wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: "Anne Gentle" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Based on today's Technical Committee meeting and conversations with the
>>>>>>>> OpenStack board members, I need to change our Conventions for service
>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Conventions#Service_and_project_names
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Previously we have indicated that Ceilometer could be named OpenStack
>>>>>>>> Telemetry and Heat could be named OpenStack Orchestration. That's not
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> case, and we need to change those names.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To quote the TC meeting, ceilometer and heat are "other modules"
>>>>>>>> (second
>>>>>>>> sentence from 4.1 in
>>>>>>>> http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/)
>>>>>>>> distributed with the Core OpenStack Project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's what I intend to change the wiki page to:
>>>>>>>> Here's the list of project and module names and their official names
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> capitalization:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ceilometer module
>>>>>>>> Cinder: OpenStack Block Storage
>>>>>>>> Glance: OpenStack Image Service
>>>>>>>> Heat module
>>>>>>>> Horizon: OpenStack dashboard
>>>>>>>> Keystone: OpenStack Identity Service
>>>>>>>> Neutron: OpenStack Networking
>>>>>>>> Nova: OpenStack Compute
>>>>>>>> Swift: OpenStack Object Storage
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Small correction. The TC had not indicated that Ceilometer could be
>>>>>> named "OpenStack Telemetry" and Heat could be named "OpenStack
>>>>>> Orchestration". We formally asked[1] the board to allow (or disallow)
>>>>>> that naming (or more precisely, that use of the trademark).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We haven't got a formal and clear answer from the board on that request
>>>>>> yet. I suspect they are waiting for progress on DefCore before deciding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you need an answer *now* (and I suspect you do), it might make sense
>>>>>> to ask foundation staff/lawyers about using those OpenStack names with
>>>>>> the current state of the bylaws and trademark usage rules, rather than
>>>>>> the hypothetical future state under discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, yes - I think having the Foundation confirm that it's
>>>>> appropriate to use "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs is the right thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's an awful lot of confusion about the subject and, ultimately,
>>>>> it's the Foundation staff who are responsible for enforcing (and giving
>>>>> advise to people on) the trademark usage rules. I've cc-ed Jonathan so
>>>>> he knows about this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> But FWIW, the TC's request is asking for Ceilometer and Heat to be
>>>>> allowed use their "Telemetry" and "Orchestration" names in *all* of the
>>>>> circumstances where e.g. Nova is allowed use its "Compute" name.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading again this clause in the bylaws:
>>>>>
>>>>> "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."
>>>>>
>>>>> it could well be said that this case of naming conventions in the docs
>>>>> for the entire OpenStack Project falls under the "distributed with" case
>>>>> and it is perfectly fine to refer to "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs.
>>>>> I'd really like to see the Foundation staff give their opinion on this,
>>>>> though.
>>
>> In this case, we are talking about documentation that is produced and
>> distributed with the integrated release to cover the Core OpenStack Project
>> and the “modules" that are distributed together with the Core OpenStack
>> Project in the integrated release. This is the intended use case for the
>> exception Mark quoted above from the Bylaws, and I think it is perfectly
>> fine to refer to the integrated components in the OpenStack release
>> documentation as OpenStack components.
>
>
> What about if I talk about OpenStack at a conference (like I'm doing
> today)? What should I say: "Orchestration", "Heat module" (or just Heat")?
>
>
> What about all the OpenStack distributors and users like SUSE,
> Rackspace, HP, Red Hat etc? What should they use in their documentation
> and software?
Should other OpenStack projects adjust, e.g. Horizon shows
"Orchestration". I guess this is fine - isn't it?
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
