On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:09 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: >>> On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane >>>> thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification" is >>>> necessary to achieve your goals. >>> >>> What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At >>> least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in >>> your testing. >>> >>> That's *exactly* what certification means. >> >> I disagree. I think the word has substantially more connotations than >> simply "this has been tested". >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036963.html > > I agree with Mark (and Anita's original rationale) that the "certified" > term conveys a level of guarantee we, as an open source project, can't > really back. Using softer terminology ("tested", "CI tested"...) is > therefore preferable. > > I also don't buy the argument that "others" would abuse that terminology > if we didn't occupy it ourselves. The only body that could efficiently > "certify" would be the Board of Directors of the OpenStack Foundation, > setting up some official certification program backed with the trademark > usage. Anyone else would just "certify" under their own, independent, > non-OpenStack program. I don't think us using that terminology would > prevent them from doing that anyway. As long as the board makes sure the > trademark is not abused in such 3rd-party "certification" programs, I > think we are ok... > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
+1 Doug _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
