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
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.
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 P
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 a
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;
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee
In this case, statement by Mark below
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 u
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
>> contrad
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 l
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
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 sugges
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 agre
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
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
In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes the
resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack Orchestration" (which I
don't believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project called Heat" and
NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
Am I getting it right?
> *Can* the projects t
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.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Troy Toman wrote:
>
>
> - Troy
>
> > On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:35 AM
- Troy
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Thierry Carrez 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 between "integ
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 tog
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 to
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
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 ar
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:
> https://revie
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 gi
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 eit
23 matches
Mail list logo
