Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 20/06/16 18:50, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-06-20 18:43:44 +0200 (+0200), Zane Bitter wrote: The binaries are free-as-in-beer - IIUC you can't redistribute them. The source code, of course, remains free-as-in-speech as it has always been. (It's easy to forget the distinction when you work

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 2016-06-20 18:43:44 +0200 (+0200), Zane Bitter wrote: > The binaries are free-as-in-beer - IIUC you can't redistribute them. The > source code, of course, remains free-as-in-speech as it has always been. > (It's easy to forget the distinction when you work in Python all day and > there are no

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 16/06/16 23:04, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-06-16 16:04:28 -0400 (-0400), Steve Gordon wrote: [...] This is definitely a point worth clarifying in the general case, but tangentially for the specific case of the RHEL operating system please note that RHEL is available to developers for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 16 June 2016 at 09:58, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Project team requirements are just guidelines, which are interpreted by > humans. In the end, the TC members vote and use human judgment rather than > blind 'rules'. I just want (1) to state that a level playing field is an

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

or...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:40 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for > OpenStack projects > > - Origi

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

- Original Message - > From: "Jeremy Stanley" <fu...@yuggoth.org> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 5:04:43 PM > Subject: Re: [opensta

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 2016-06-16 16:04:28 -0400 (-0400), Steve Gordon wrote: [...] > This is definitely a point worth clarifying in the general case, > but tangentially for the specific case of the RHEL operating > system please note that RHEL is available to developers for free: > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 09:35 Jun 14, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > A few months ago we had the discussion about what "no open core" means in > > 2016, in the context of the Poppy team candidacy. With our reading at the > > time we ended up

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

- Original Message - > From: "Amrith Kumar" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > > Thierry, > > Thanks for writing this up and for the interesting discussion that has come > up in this ML thread.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Thanks Thierry, I did the same (again) :) -amrith > -Original Message- > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:22 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a leve

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Robert Collins wrote: [...] From an upstream perspective, I see us as being in the business of providing open collaboration playing fields in order to build projects to reach the OpenStack Mission. We collectively provide resources (infra, horizontal teams, events...) in order to enable that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Matt Riedemann wrote: [...] So is the question does Nova provide a level playing field as a project because it has drivers that can be deployed and used and tested without special hardware, i.e. libvirt? Then yes. Or is it Nova doesn't provide a level playing field because zVM and powervm aren't

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

This might come across a little trolly/devils advocate, but I mulled on it for a few days, and I think I need to send it, so... fingers crossed you can extract some value from my questions. On 15 June 2016 at 01:57, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just proposed

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 6/14/2016 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects, which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/ From an upstream perspective, I see us as being in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Excerpts from Kyle Mestery's message of 2016-06-15 09:05:59 -0500: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Amrith Kumar wrote: Thanks for writing this up and for the interesting discussion that has come up in this ML thread. While I think I get the general idea of the motivation, I think the verbiage doesn't quite do justice to your intent. One area which I would like to highlight is the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Thierry, Thanks for writing this up and for the interesting discussion that has come up in this ML thread. While I think I get the general idea of the motivation, I think the verbiage doesn't quite do justice to your intent. One area which I would like to highlight is the situation with the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects, >> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Neil, On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Neil Jerram wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM Thierry Carrez > wrote: >> >> [...] >> Those are good points. Note that I do not advocate for those projects to >> be kept closed/private: I'm simply saying that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM Thierry Carrez wrote: > [...] > Those are good points. Note that I do not advocate for those projects to > be kept closed/private: I'm simply saying that those (open source) > projects should not be blessed as "official" and be put under the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Doug Hellmann wrote: From our perspective, we (designate) currently have a few drivers from proprietary vendors, and would like to add one in the near future. The current drivers are marked as "release compatible" - aka someone is nominated to test the driver throughout the release cycle, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Fox, Kevin M wrote: Some counter arguments for keeping them in: * It gives the developers of the code that's being plugged into a better view of how the plugin api is used and what might break if they change it. * Vendors don't tend to support drivers forever. Often they drop support for a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 14/06/2016 17:14, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 06/14/2016 10:44 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: >> On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects, >>> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review: >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-06-14 14:44:36 +: > On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects, > > which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 06/14/2016 10:44 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects, >> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/ >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:15 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200: > Hi everyone, > > I just proposed a new requirement for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects, > which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/ > > From an upstream perspective, I see us as being in

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > A few months ago we had the discussion about what "no open core" means in > 2016, in the context of the Poppy team candidacy. With our reading at the > time we ended up rejecting Poppy partly because it was interfacing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for OpenStack projects

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200: > Hi everyone, > > I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects, > which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/ > > From an upstream