On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 07:40 +, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
We need to distinguish between (1) adding the modules to the Core
OpenStack Project which requires a recommendation by the TC and
approval by the Board and (2) adding the modules to an integrated
release (including Core OpenStack
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 09:53 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
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
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 23:06 -0600, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
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
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 07:58 -0600, m...@openstack.org wrote:
Yes.
Also, there are two trademark concepts being mixed here.
1)
*Can* the projects themselves use the word OpenStack such as
OpenStack Orchestration?
Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a done deal and we are
Note to self: paddle faster.
From: Boris Renski [mailto:bren...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Thierry Carrez
Cc: openstack@lists.openstack.org Openstack;
foundation-bo...@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
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
On 14/11/13 18:41, Jonathan Bryce 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
Joshua McKenty wrote:
Thierry, I'll make sure this motion lands on the agenda for discussion
at the next board meeting. I don't see a gerritt entry for that motion,
though - where is the vote recorded?
The review is at:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55375/
The votes also appear on the git
On 11/14/2013 03:24 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joshua McKenty wrote:
Thierry, I'll make sure this motion lands on the agenda for discussion
at the next board meeting. I don't see a gerritt entry for that motion,
though - where is the vote recorded?
The review is at:
Yes.
Also, there are two trademark concepts being mixed here.
1)
*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
On 11/14/2013 08:58 AM, m...@openstack.org wrote:
Yes.
Also, there are two trademark concepts being mixed here.
1) *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
Boris Renski wrote:
So if I am interpreting this correctly, we are doing away with the
concept of Core entirely until after the interop work is done?
Otherwise, I am a bit unclear as to the difference between integrated
and core at this point?
I fear that the term core is way too
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
- Troy
On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Boris Renski wrote:
So if I am interpreting this correctly, we are doing away with the
concept of Core entirely until after the interop work is done?
Otherwise, I am a bit unclear as to the difference
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
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
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
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
On 11/14/2013 09:56 AM, Boris Renski wrote:
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.
I don't see this
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
Thierry, I'll make sure this motion lands on the agenda for discussion at the
next board meeting. I don't see a gerritt entry for that motion, though - where
is the vote recorded?
Since I have grave concerns about the use of the term OpenStack in relationship
to either of these projects (in
21 matches
Mail list logo
