[Openstack] 2014 Election Cycle
Hi everyone, I wanted to send a reminder around the upcoming 2014 Board elections for the OpenStack Foundation (http://www.openstack.org/election/2014-individual-director-election/). Nominations are open for Individual Members for the Jaunary 2013 Board Election. You can visit the member directory and click on a member’s profile to nominate them: http://www.openstack.org/community/members As with the previous elections, a member must receive 10 nominations before nominations close to appear on the ballot. Candidates must also complete an application. Nominations close on December 9. Election Timeline Summary: - November 25: Individual Member nominations open, election details live on openstack.org - December 9: Individual Member nominations close - December 13: Deadline for Individual Member Nominees to complete application - January 6: Gold Member Director Selector Election (1 day) - January 13: Individual Member Elections open - January 17: Individual Member Elections close Note that the Gold Member process will complete prior to the start of the Individual Member elections. If you have any questions regarding membership, the nomination process, or any other matter regarding the elections, please contact the Secretary (Jonathan Bryce) at secret...@openstack.org and be sure to check out the primary election page: http://www.openstack.org/election/2014-individual-director-election/ Jonathan Bryce 210-317-2438 ___ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee
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. Jonathan On Nov 14, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Boris Renski wrote: > 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 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 > <mailto:jbr...@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 tr
Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee
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 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 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-bo...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board ___ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Re: [Openstack] User Survey / Reminder
I think it could make sense to carry forward the personal info and deployment data--which is likely to have lower variability--and allow the survey portion up front to be completed "fresh" each cycle. Jonathan On Sep 25, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Tim Bell wrote: > > > I am in favour of carry forward of data. > > Asking people to fill out the same data as last time is also not good. I > still work in the same area and have the same geographical > location. I welcome not having to put that in again. > > Tim > >> -Original Message- >> From: Gabriel Hurley [mailto:gabriel.hur...@nebula.com] >> Sent: 25 September 2013 21:49 >> To: Stefano Maffulli; Operators, OpenStack; General, OpenStack >> Subject: Re: [Openstack] User Survey / Reminder >> >> I have a question on this: >> >> I logged in to take the user survey, and it still had all of my answers from >> the last user survey filled in. If this is > intentional, it's very strange >> behavior. I don't feel that I should be overwriting my previous answers. >> That feels oddly invalidating. It also encourages bad > behavior by >> simply "carrying forward" the same sentiments instead of considering what >> you want to say anew. >> >> If it's a bug, then consider this my bug report... >> >> Thanks! >> >>- Gabriel >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stef...@openstack.org] >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:59 AM >>> To: Operators, OpenStack; General, OpenStack >>> Subject: [Openstack] User Survey / Reminder >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> this is a reminder to fill in the User Survey: the deadline to >>> complete the survey is September 30. >>> >>> If you're using OpenStack, take 15 minutes to complete the User Survey >>> by Sept 30. Your feedback can impact the roadmap >>> >>> http://www.openstack.org/user-survey >>> >>> If you know somebody that uses OpenStack, please have them fill in the >>> survey. Your opinion counts! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> stef >>> >>> -- >>> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org >>> >>> ___ >>> Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >>> Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org >>> Unsubscribe : >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> ___ >> Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org >> Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > ___ > Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org > Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack ___ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
