Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
On 06/10/2014 12:32 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 06/10/2014 11:37 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 06/10/2014 09:53 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 06/10/2014 09:14 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 06/10/2014 04:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 20:14 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options: 1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the "certification" to the project level. 2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of Vendor-specific Drivers. Hi Ramy, Thanks for these constructive suggestions. The second option is certainly a very direct and specific reflection of what is actually involved in getting the Cinder project's imprimatur. I do like "tested." I'd like to understand what the foundation is planning for "certification" as well, to know how big of an issue this really is. Even if they aren't going to certify drivers, I have heard discussions around training and possibly other areas so I would hate for us to introduce confusion by having different uses of that term in similar contexts. Mark, do you know who is working on that within the board or foundation? http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/05/17/may-11-openstack-foundation-board-meeting/ Boris Renski raised the possibility of the Foundation attaching the trademark to a verified, certified or tested status for drivers. It wasn't discussed at length because board members hadn't been briefed in advance, but I think it's safe to say there was a knee-jerk negative reaction from a number of members. This is in the context of the DriverLog report: http://stackalytics.com/report/driverlog http://www.mirantis.com/blog/cloud-drivers-openstack-driverlog-part-1-solving-driver-problem/ http://www.mirantis.com/blog/openstack-will-open-source-vendor-certifications/ AIUI the "CI tested" phrase was chosen in DriverLog to avoid the controversial area Boris describes in the last link above. I think that makes sense. Claiming this CI testing replaces more traditional certification programs is a sure way to bog potentially useful collaboration down in vendor politics. Actually FWIW the DriverLog is not posting accurate information, I came upon two instances yesterday where I found the information "questionable" at best. I know I questioned it. Kyle and I have agreed to not rely on the DriverLog information as it currently stands as a way of assessing the fitness of third party CI systems. I'll add some footnotes for those who want more details. [%%], [++], [&&] Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something I'm really keen on, and why I think the word "certification" is best avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve. Mark. I agree with Mark, everytime we try to 'abstract' away from logs and put an new interface on it, the focus moves to the interface and folks stop paying attention to logs. We archive and have links to artifacts for a reason and I think we need to encourage and support people to access these artifacts and draw their own conclusions, which is in keeping with our license. Copy/pasting Mark here: "Also AIUI "certification" implies some level of warranty or guarantee, which goes against the pretty clear language "WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND" in our license :)" [**] Honestly, the bigger issue I've got at this point is that driverlog is horribly inaccurate. Based on DriverLog you'd see that we don't test KVM or QEMU at all, only XenAPI. Then shouldn't the focus be on both reporting bugs to DriverLog [1] and fixing these inaccuracies? DriverLog doesn't use the term "certified" anywhere, for the record. It is an honest best effort to provide some insight into the testability of various drivers in the OpenStack ecosystem in a more up-to-date way than outdated wiki pages showing matrixes of support for something. It's an alpha project that can and will have bugs. I can absolutely guarantee you that the developers of the DriverLog project are more interested in getting accurate information shown in the interface than with any of the politics around the word "certified". That seemed like a pretty obvious error. :) I'd rather have the errors be obvious and correctable than obscure and hidden behind some admin curtain. If we're calling it alpha than perhaps it shouldn't be presented to users when they go to stackalytics, which has largely become the defacto place where press an analysts go to get project statistics? I'm fine with it being alpha, and treated as such, off in a corner. But it seems to be presented front and center with stackalytics, so really needs to be held to a higher standard. So, if this is all about the placement of the DriverLog button on the stackalytics page, then we should talk about that separately from a discussion of the data that
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
On 06/09/2014 03:17 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. Currently the word under discussion is "certified" and its derivatives: certification, certifying, and others with root word "certificate". This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more discussion on this. So let's discuss. Let's start with the definition of certify: cer·ti·fy verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim. 2. to testify to or vouch for in writing: The medical examiner will certify his findings to the court. 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal. 4. to guarantee (a check) by writing on its face that the account against which it is drawn has sufficient funds to pay it. 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certify The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing the attesting. I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. Thank you for your participation, Anita. >>> >>> Hi Anita, >>> >>> Just a note on cross-posting to both the os-dev and os-tc lists. >>> >>> Anyone not on the TC who will hits reply-all is likely to see their >>> post be rejected by the TC list moderator, but go through to the >>> more open dev list. >>> >>> As a result, the thread diverges (as we saw with the recent election >>> stats/turnout thread). >>> >>> Also, moderation rejects are an unpleasant user experience. >>> >>> So if a post is intended to reach out for input from the wider dev >>> community, it's better to post *only* to the -dev list, or vice versa >>> if you want to interact with a narrower audience. >> My post was intended to include the tc list in the discussion >> >> I have no say in what posts the tc email list moderator accepts or does >> not, or how those posts not accepted are informed of their status. > > Well the TC list moderation policy isn't so much the issue here, as the > practice of cross-posting between open- and closed-moderation lists. > > Even absent strict moderation being applied, as hasn't been the case for > this thread, cross-posting still tends to cause divergence of threads due > to moderator-lag and individuals choosing not to cross-post their replies. > > The os-dev subscriber list should be a strict super-set of the os-tc list, > so anything posted just to the former will naturally be visible to the TC > membership also. > > Thanks, > Eoghan > I think you need to start a new topic with your thoughts on how the email lists should be organized. This particular conversation doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand anymore. Thanks Eoghan, Anita. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
> >> So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. > >> > >> If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using > >> the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack > >> Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the > >> hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. > >> > >> Currently the word under discussion is "certified" and its derivatives: > >> certification, certifying, and others with root word "certificate". > >> > >> This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session > >> with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my > >> point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more > >> discussion on this. So let's discuss. > >> > >> Let's start with the definition of certify: > >> cer·ti·fy > >> verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. > >> 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He > >> certified the truth of his claim. > >> 2. to testify to or vouch for in writing: The medical examiner will > >> certify his findings to the court. > >> 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an > >> official seal. > >> 4. to guarantee (a check) by writing on its face that the account > >> against which it is drawn has sufficient funds to pay it. > >> 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a > >> course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. > >> Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certify > >> > >> The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a > >> group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only > >> as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. > >> We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for > >> evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing > >> the attesting. > >> > >> I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing > >> of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address > >> the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to > >> proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word > >> "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack > >> programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some > >> discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. > >> > >> Thank you for your participation, > >> Anita. > > > > Hi Anita, > > > > Just a note on cross-posting to both the os-dev and os-tc lists. > > > > Anyone not on the TC who will hits reply-all is likely to see their > > post be rejected by the TC list moderator, but go through to the > > more open dev list. > > > > As a result, the thread diverges (as we saw with the recent election > > stats/turnout thread). > > > > Also, moderation rejects are an unpleasant user experience. > > > > So if a post is intended to reach out for input from the wider dev > > community, it's better to post *only* to the -dev list, or vice versa > > if you want to interact with a narrower audience. > My post was intended to include the tc list in the discussion > > I have no say in what posts the tc email list moderator accepts or does > not, or how those posts not accepted are informed of their status. Well the TC list moderation policy isn't so much the issue here, as the practice of cross-posting between open- and closed-moderation lists. Even absent strict moderation being applied, as hasn't been the case for this thread, cross-posting still tends to cause divergence of threads due to moderator-lag and individuals choosing not to cross-post their replies. The os-dev subscriber list should be a strict super-set of the os-tc list, so anything posted just to the former will naturally be visible to the TC membership also. Thanks, Eoghan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
> On 9 June 2014 09:44, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > Since "certification" seems to be quite an overloaded term > > already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as > > "quality assured" better capture the Cinder project's use of > > the word? > > > > It does exactly what it says on the tin ... i.e. captures the > > fact that a vendor has run an agreed battery of tests against > > their driver and the harness has reported green-ness with a > > meaning that is well understood upstream (as the Tempest test > > cases are in the public domain). > > > I think 'quality-assured' makes a far stronger statement than > 'certified'. Hmmm, what kind of statement is made by the title of the program under which the Tempest harness falls: https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/programs.yaml#L247 The purpose of Quality Assurance is to assure quality, no? So essentially anything that passes such QA tests, has had its quality assured in a well-understood sense? > 'Certified' indicated that some configuration has been > shown to work for for some set of feature, and some organisation is > attesting to the fact that is true. This is /exactly/ what the cinder > team is attesting to, and this program was bought in > _because_a_large_number_of_drivers_didn't_work_in_the_slightest_. > Since it is the cinder team who are going to get up fielding support > for cinder code, and the cinder team who's reputation is on the line > over the quality of cinder code, I think we are exactly the people who > can design a certification program, and that is exactly what we have > done. Sure, no issue at all with the Cinder team being best placed to judge what works and what doesn't in terms of Cinder backends. Just gently suggesting that due to the terminology-overload, it might be wise to choose a term with fewer connotations. Cheers, Eoghan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
On 9 June 2014 09:44, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > Since "certification" seems to be quite an overloaded term > already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as > "quality assured" better capture the Cinder project's use of > the word? > > It does exactly what it says on the tin ... i.e. captures the > fact that a vendor has run an agreed battery of tests against > their driver and the harness has reported green-ness with a > meaning that is well understood upstream (as the Tempest test > cases are in the public domain). I think 'quality-assured' makes a far stronger statement than 'certified'. 'Certified' indicated that some configuration has been shown to work for for some set of feature, and some organisation is attesting to the fact that is true. This is /exactly/ what the cinder team is attesting to, and this program was bought in _because_a_large_number_of_drivers_didn't_work_in_the_slightest_. Since it is the cinder team who are going to get up fielding support for cinder code, and the cinder team who's reputation is on the line over the quality of cinder code, I think we are exactly the people who can design a certification program, and that is exactly what we have done. -- Duncan Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
- Original Message - > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin < mar...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > > The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a > > group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only > > as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. > > We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for > > evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing > > the attesting. > > > > I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing > > of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address > > the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to > > proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word > > "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack > > programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some > > discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. > > Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that "certified driver" or > similar would suggest something other than I think we mean. > Can you expand on the above comment? In other words a bit more about what > "you" mean. I think from the perspective of a number of people that > participate in Cinder the intent is in fact to say. Maybe it would help > clear some things up for folks that don't see why this has become a > debatable issue. > > By running CI tests successfully that it is in fact a way of certifying that > our device and driver is in fact 'certified' to function appropriately and > provide the same level of API and behavioral compatability as the default > components as demonstrated by running CI tests on each submitted patch. > > Personally I believe part of the contesting of the phrases and terms is > partly due to the fact that a number of organizations have their own > "certification" programs and tests. I think that's great, and they in fact > provide some form of "certification" that a device works in their > environment and to their expectations. > > Doing this from a general OpenStack integration perspective doesn't seem all > that different to me. For the record, my initial response to this was that I > didn't have too much preference on what it was called (verification, > certification etc etc), however there seems to be a large number of people > (not product vendors for what it's worth) that feel differently. Since "certification" seems to be quite an overloaded term already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as "quality assured" better capture the Cinder project's use of the word? It does exactly what it says on the tin ... i.e. captures the fact that a vendor has run an agreed battery of tests against their driver and the harness has reported green-ness with a meaning that is well understood upstream (as the Tempest test cases are in the public domain). Cheers, Eoghan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
Hi John, On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:59 -0600, John Griffith wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM, John Griffith > wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > > The issue I have with the word certify is that it > requires someone or a > > group of someones to attest to something. The thing > attested to is only > > as credible as the someone or the group of someones > doing the attesting. > > We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a > process for > > evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups > of someones doing > > the attesting. > > > > I think that having testing in place in line with > other programs testing > > of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be > sufficient to address > > the underlying concern, namely reliability of > opensource hooks to > > proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the > use of the word > > "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used > in OpenStack > > programs with regard to testing. This won't happen > until we get some > > discussion and agreement on this, which I would like > to have. > > > Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that > "certified driver" or > similar would suggest something other than I think we > mean. > > Can you expand on the above comment? In other words a bit > more about what "you" mean. I think from the perspective of a > number of people that participate in Cinder the intent is in > fact to say. Maybe it would help clear some things up for > folks that don't see why this has become a debatable issue. Fair question. I didn't elaborate initially because I thought Anita covered it pretty well. > By running CI tests successfully that it is in fact a way of > certifying that our device and driver is in fact 'certified' > to function appropriately and provide the same level of API > and behavioral compatability as the default components as > demonstrated by running CI tests on each submitted patch. My view is that "certification" is an attestation that someone can take the certified combination of a driver and whatever vendor product it is associated with, and the combination will be fit for purpose in any of the configurations that it supports. To achieve anything close to that, we'd need to be explicit about what distros, deployment tools, OpenStack configurations and vendor configurations must be supported. And it would be fairly strange for us to do that considering the way OpenStack just ships tarballs currently rather than a fully deployable thing. Also AIUI "certification" implies some level of warranty or guarantee, which goes against the pretty clear language "WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND" in our license :) Basically, I think there's a world of difference between what's expected of a certification body and what a technical community like ours should IMHO be undertaking in terms of providing information about how functional and maintained drivers are. (To be clear, I love any that we're trying to surface information about how well maintained and tested drivers are) > Personally I believe part of the contesting of the phrases and > terms is partly due to the fact that a number of organizations > have their own "certification" programs and tests. I think > that's great, and they in fact provide some form of > "certification" that a device works in their environment and > to their expectations. Also fair, and I should be careful to be clear about my Red Hat bias on this. I am speaking here with my "upstream hat" on - i.e. thinking about what's good for the project, not necessarily Red Hat - but I'm definitely influenced about the meaning of "certification" by knowing a little about Red Hat's product certification program. > Doing this from a general OpenStack integration perspective > doesn't seem all that different to me. For the record, my > initial response to this was that I didn't have too much > preference on what it was called (verification, certification > etc etc), however there seems to be a large number of people > (not product vendors for what it's worth) that feel > differently. > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin > wrot
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: >> > The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a >> > group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only >> > as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. >> > We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for >> > evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing >> > the attesting. >> > >> > I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing >> > of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address >> > the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to >> > proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word >> > "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack >> > programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some >> > discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. >> >> Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that "certified driver" or >> similar would suggest something other than I think we mean. >> > > Can you expand on the above comment? In other words a bit more about > what "you" mean. I think from the perspective of a number of people that > participate in Cinder the intent is in fact to say. Maybe it would help > clear some things up for folks that don't see why this has become a > debatable issue. > > By running CI tests successfully that it is in fact a way of certifying > that our device and driver is in fact 'certified' to function appropriately > and provide the same level of API and behavioral compatability as the > default components as demonstrated by running CI tests on each submitted > patch. > > Personally I believe part of the contesting of the phrases and terms is > partly due to the fact that a number of organizations have their own > "certification" programs and tests. I think that's great, and they in fact > provide some form of "certification" that a device works in their > environment and to their expectations. > > Doing this from a general OpenStack integration perspective doesn't seem > all that different to me. For the record, my initial response to this was > that I didn't have too much preference on what it was called (verification, > certification etc etc), however there seems to be a large number of people > (not product vendors for what it's worth) that feel differently. > > > > > >> And, for whatever its worth, the topic did come up at a Foundation board >> meeting and some board members expressed similar concerns, although I >> guess that was more precisely about the prospect of the Foundation >> calling drivers "certified". >> >> Mark. >> >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-TC mailing list >> openstack...@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > > > By the way, has anybody thought about this in an OpenStack general context. I mean, are we saying that we don't offer any sort of certification or verification that the various OpenStack components or services actually work? I realize there are significantly different levels of certification and that's an important distinction as well in my opinion. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing one view over another here, but there are valid points of view being raised. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > > The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a > > group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only > > as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. > > We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for > > evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing > > the attesting. > > > > I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing > > of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address > > the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to > > proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word > > "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack > > programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some > > discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. > > Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that "certified driver" or > similar would suggest something other than I think we mean. > Can you expand on the above comment? In other words a bit more about what "you" mean. I think from the perspective of a number of people that participate in Cinder the intent is in fact to say. Maybe it would help clear some things up for folks that don't see why this has become a debatable issue. By running CI tests successfully that it is in fact a way of certifying that our device and driver is in fact 'certified' to function appropriately and provide the same level of API and behavioral compatability as the default components as demonstrated by running CI tests on each submitted patch. Personally I believe part of the contesting of the phrases and terms is partly due to the fact that a number of organizations have their own "certification" programs and tests. I think that's great, and they in fact provide some form of "certification" that a device works in their environment and to their expectations. Doing this from a general OpenStack integration perspective doesn't seem all that different to me. For the record, my initial response to this was that I didn't have too much preference on what it was called (verification, certification etc etc), however there seems to be a large number of people (not product vendors for what it's worth) that feel differently. > And, for whatever its worth, the topic did come up at a Foundation board > meeting and some board members expressed similar concerns, although I > guess that was more precisely about the prospect of the Foundation > calling drivers "certified". > > Mark. > > > ___ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > openstack...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] use of the word certified
On 06/06/2014 03:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >> So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do. >> >> If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using >> the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack >> Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the >> hook for behaviours that they didn't agree to. >> >> Currently the word under discussion is "certified" and its derivatives: >> certification, certifying, and others with root word "certificate". >> >> This came to my attention at the summit with a cinder summit session >> with the one of the cerficiate words in the title. I had thought my >> point had been made but it appears that there needs to be more >> discussion on this. So let's discuss. >> >> Let's start with the definition of certify: >> cer·ti·fy >> verb (used with object), cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing. >> 1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He >> certified the truth of his claim. >> 2. to testify to or vouch for in writing: The medical examiner will >> certify his findings to the court. >> 3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an >> official seal. >> 4. to guarantee (a check) by writing on its face that the account >> against which it is drawn has sufficient funds to pay it. >> 5. to award a certificate to (a person) attesting to the completion of a >> course of study or the passing of a qualifying examination. >> Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certify >> >> The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a >> group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only >> as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. >> We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for >> evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing >> the attesting. >> >> I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing >> of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address >> the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to >> proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word >> "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack >> programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some >> discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. >> >> Thank you for your participation, >> Anita. > > I didn't see that summit session. Is someone claiming that a driver is > being certified? Or asking that someone certify a driver? The Cinder project has been using that terminology for testing of their drivers for a while. It's something worth discussing, though. Maybe we can put it on the agenda for an upcoming TC meeting? https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/certified-drivers -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
