On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellm...@dreamhost.com > wrote:
> 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 > Thanks everybody for the feedback on this, I appreciate it. Like I said initially, I don't have much of a stake in this but there were folks that did so I wanted to give everyone a chance to discuss here publicly on the ML. Whether I agree with the opinions stated in this thread or not (and for a number of them I really don't) doesn't matter. Maybe since what we're talking about is "CI Tested" maybe we should just call it that and be done.
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
