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 Thierry's.
>
> I don't see this contradiction between what Thierry says and what
> Jonathan says. On the contrary, I see Jonathan's words confirming what
> Thierry said.
>
> My understanding is that both are saying that since OpenStack
> Orchestration and Metering are released together with other packages
> (modules) in *one*, *integrated* release managed by the TC, they can be
> called 'OpenStack'-something under art. 4.1(b) of the bylaws. My
> understanding is that Trove will likely be in the same situation as Heat
> once it graduates out of incubation.
I'll admit that the language in the bylaws was a bit confusing to me
(and others on the TC), which is why we submitted this resolution in the
first place. Both Mark and Jonathan clarified that projects integrated
in the common OpenStack release ("integrated" projects) can all call
themselves "OpenStack Blah" without needing to ask permission from the
BoD. That just makes sense and is consistent with the way we operated in
the past, so I'm definitely fine with that.
I think we can go back to ignoring this confusing "Core OpenStack
project" language and continue using the term "core" to designate the
subset of integrated projects that you are /required/ to implement to
call your implementation "an OpenStack cloud".
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org
Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
