From alanclark at openstack.org Tue Dec 1 01:03:22 2020 From: alanclark at openstack.org (alanclark at openstack.org) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:22 -0700 Subject: [Foundation Board] Call for agenda items for the December 8, 2020 OpenStack board meeting Message-ID: <043701d6c77d$c447af40$4cd70dc0$@openstack.org> Directors, We have quite a full agenda for next week's OpenStack board meeting, but please let me know if you have any additional items to add to the agenda. Regards, AlanClark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amy at demarco.com Tue Dec 1 19:36:30 2020 From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:36:30 -0600 Subject: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? In-Reply-To: References: <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org> Message-ID: Like Arkady I think branding and trademarking should be at the Project level but also with an overall brand and trademark for the Foundation. Interoperability is a more difficult thing in my mind. I think we should still have interoperability between vendors who offer a product based on one of the OIF's projects. So as mentioned the same OpenStack API call in theory that works on one vendor should work on all vendors, a Kata container should work the same, etc. Where I think it gets a bit more difficult is as we add more projects should those new projects be interoperable with existing projects. In planning the face to face meeting, we had discussed the goal of adding projects that complemented what we had already to create an overall Open IInfrastructure in which case all 'Open Infrastructure' projects should be able to work together. But if more distantly related projects are added I don't think it can be expected to have that same interoperability. Thanks, Amy On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: > Dell Customer Communication - Confidential > > I will skip by-laws angle as it is only means to achieve a goal. > > Trademarks really serve two purposes: > 1. it is a common definition and common language. > 2. protection and path to branding. > > As we moved to OIF, trademark for OIF as the whole does not bring value. > But having trademarks for each projects under OIF umbrella make sense. > > Suggest we look at two audiences. > 1. Users/Operators > 2. Vendors/Providers. > > The first ones want to ensure that when they develop apps/tools using OIF > projects APIs they will work on "all" vendor/providers "products" > (including upstream). > The second ones deliver products/services based on OIF projects. > > Both parties want to have branding for the "contract" between two > audiences. > And interop is just a tool for that branding. > > In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of churn > and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack projects work > together. > We are past that stage for OpenStack. > But for other OIF projects we are in various stages. > Some of them are two new to have multiple implementations or vendor > products based on them. > Some, like Kata Containers, never intended to be standalone. > > But we still need branding, but in my view per OIF project. > My 2c. > > Thanks, > Arkady > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thierry Carrez > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM > To: foundation at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is > it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > Julia Kreger wrote: > > Over the past few weeks I’ve been in a number of discussions regarding > > some of our most very fun topics. Branding, Trademarks, and > > Interoperability. > > [...] > > Thanks Julia for starting this timely and important discussion. > > I agree that trademarks are not a goal in themselves, they are just means > to an end, and periodically revising those end goals is necessary. > > To add some historical context, my summary would be that until now the > Board has been using trademarks to drive two strategic objectives: > > 1- Interoperability: a enduser-centric view of what to expect when > interacting with "openstack", driving ideally towards an identical > experience. The tactics (driven by RefStack) were focused on making sure a > minimal set of APIs were available in products allowed to call themselves > "openstack", and try to grow that set over time. > > 2- Branding: an ecosystem-centric view of building a set of "compatible" > products, driving ideally toward establishing a large marketplace. The > tactics used for the first objective encouraged products to apply for the > trademark programs, which was used as a funnel for the marketplace. > > As we enter the OIF era, are those end goals still valuable? Are > trademarks the best tool to achieve them? Are there other key goals we > should leverage trademarks for? Are the current tactics we use (Refstack > and powered-by trademark programs) still valid ? > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > Foundation-board mailing list > Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board > _______________________________________________ > Foundation-board mailing list > Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From juliaashleykreger at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 21:07:17 2020 From: juliaashleykreger at gmail.com (Julia Kreger) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:07:17 -0800 Subject: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? In-Reply-To: References: <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org>

Message-ID: In reading the replies thus far, I tend to agree branding and trademark should fall within the project scope. What I mean by that in my case, is I think the projects themselves need to express what is important to them. Perhaps that should become part of what a project is expected to state? A project should have the ability to state their own desired destiny along with their scoping and mission statements (if present). I think the same could be said for interoperability and as we move forward into the OIF. Maybe a reasonable thing is for the Foundation to do the basic needful in terms of marks (trademark, branding, etc.); However, then allow the project to determine their own next steps. We don't want to be in a situation where a project joins us and then has to rename/rebrand due to a conflict down the road due to something unforeseen. I think it is up to the board to foster a larger open infrastructure ecosystem. Not only through our actions on the board, but the encouragement and voices we have outside the context of a board meeting. Where the topic of fostering a larger open infrastructure ecosystem leads, at least in my mind, is an area that is vague when I start to think of "How?". That is, in part, because I think we would want to encourage cross-community integrations and co-operation to reach logical conclusions and ultimately solutions. At a high level, that seems ideal to myself. What does not seem ideal is detailed technical requirements being approved by the board. In my opinion, we should set the direction and help enable that to be reached easily. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that projects should be able to define what is interoperability to them. In some cases, it could be "Adhere and conform to x, y, z standards", or "able to pass x test", or "Able to be leveraged for $purpose". Amy raises a great point that things will get more difficult, if not impossible, if we attempt to apply the same or expanding detailed requirements upon new and existing projects. -Julia On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:39 AM Amy Marrich wrote: > > Like Arkady I think branding and trademarking should be at the Project level but also with an overall brand and trademark for the Foundation. Interoperability is a more difficult thing in my mind. I think we should still have interoperability between vendors who offer a product based on one of the OIF's projects. So as mentioned the same OpenStack API call in theory that works on one vendor should work on all vendors, a Kata container should work the same, etc. > > Where I think it gets a bit more difficult is as we add more projects should those new projects be interoperable with existing projects. In planning the face to face meeting, we had discussed the goal of adding projects that complemented what we had already to create an overall Open IInfrastructure in which case all 'Open Infrastructure' projects should be able to work together. But if more distantly related projects are added I don't think it can be expected to have that same interoperability. > > Thanks, > > Amy > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: >> >> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential >> >> I will skip by-laws angle as it is only means to achieve a goal. >> >> Trademarks really serve two purposes: >> 1. it is a common definition and common language. >> 2. protection and path to branding. >> >> As we moved to OIF, trademark for OIF as the whole does not bring value. But having trademarks for each projects under OIF umbrella make sense. >> >> Suggest we look at two audiences. >> 1. Users/Operators >> 2. Vendors/Providers. >> >> The first ones want to ensure that when they develop apps/tools using OIF projects APIs they will work on "all" vendor/providers "products" (including upstream). >> The second ones deliver products/services based on OIF projects. >> >> Both parties want to have branding for the "contract" between two audiences. >> And interop is just a tool for that branding. >> >> In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of churn and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack projects work together. >> We are past that stage for OpenStack. >> But for other OIF projects we are in various stages. >> Some of them are two new to have multiple implementations or vendor products based on them. >> Some, like Kata Containers, never intended to be standalone. >> >> But we still need branding, but in my view per OIF project. >> My 2c. >> >> Thanks, >> Arkady >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thierry Carrez >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM >> To: foundation at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? >> >> >> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >> >> Julia Kreger wrote: >> > Over the past few weeks I’ve been in a number of discussions regarding >> > some of our most very fun topics. Branding, Trademarks, and >> > Interoperability. >> > [...] >> >> Thanks Julia for starting this timely and important discussion. >> >> I agree that trademarks are not a goal in themselves, they are just means to an end, and periodically revising those end goals is necessary. >> >> To add some historical context, my summary would be that until now the Board has been using trademarks to drive two strategic objectives: >> >> 1- Interoperability: a enduser-centric view of what to expect when interacting with "openstack", driving ideally towards an identical experience. The tactics (driven by RefStack) were focused on making sure a minimal set of APIs were available in products allowed to call themselves "openstack", and try to grow that set over time. >> >> 2- Branding: an ecosystem-centric view of building a set of "compatible" >> products, driving ideally toward establishing a large marketplace. The tactics used for the first objective encouraged products to apply for the trademark programs, which was used as a funnel for the marketplace. >> >> As we enter the OIF era, are those end goals still valuable? Are trademarks the best tool to achieve them? Are there other key goals we should leverage trademarks for? Are the current tactics we use (Refstack and powered-by trademark programs) still valid ? >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Foundation-board mailing list >> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board >> _______________________________________________ >> Foundation-board mailing list >> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board > > _______________________________________________ > Foundation mailing list > Foundation at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com Fri Dec 4 21:40:07 2020 From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 21:40:07 +0000 Subject: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? In-Reply-To: References: <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org>

Message-ID: Dell Customer Communication - Confidential Julia, Agree with you except for "integrated" projects like OpenStack. If we are to foster integrated solutions that include multiple projects they need to be branded and trademarked together. That is very complication starts for projects that are both standalone and integrated. We may have to go with multiple trademarks for a single solution/ integrated project. Something to discuss at the board. But I also think we should pull in TC/UC team for it. Thanks, Arkady -----Original Message----- From: Julia Kreger Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 3:07 PM To: Amy Marrich Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; Thierry Carrez; foundation at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? [EXTERNAL EMAIL] In reading the replies thus far, I tend to agree branding and trademark should fall within the project scope. What I mean by that in my case, is I think the projects themselves need to express what is important to them. Perhaps that should become part of what a project is expected to state? A project should have the ability to state their own desired destiny along with their scoping and mission statements (if present). I think the same could be said for interoperability and as we move forward into the OIF. Maybe a reasonable thing is for the Foundation to do the basic needful in terms of marks (trademark, branding, etc.); However, then allow the project to determine their own next steps. We don't want to be in a situation where a project joins us and then has to rename/rebrand due to a conflict down the road due to something unforeseen. I think it is up to the board to foster a larger open infrastructure ecosystem. Not only through our actions on the board, but the encouragement and voices we have outside the context of a board meeting. Where the topic of fostering a larger open infrastructure ecosystem leads, at least in my mind, is an area that is vague when I start to think of "How?". That is, in part, because I think we would want to encourage cross-community integrations and co-operation to reach logical conclusions and ultimately solutions. At a high level, that seems ideal to myself. What does not seem ideal is detailed technical requirements being approved by the board. In my opinion, we should set the direction and help enable that to be reached easily. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that projects should be able to define what is interoperability to them. In some cases, it could be "Adhere and conform to x, y, z standards", or "able to pass x test", or "Able to be leveraged for $purpose". Amy raises a great point that things will get more difficult, if not impossible, if we attempt to apply the same or expanding detailed requirements upon new and existing projects. -Julia On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:39 AM Amy Marrich wrote: > > Like Arkady I think branding and trademarking should be at the Project level but also with an overall brand and trademark for the Foundation. Interoperability is a more difficult thing in my mind. I think we should still have interoperability between vendors who offer a product based on one of the OIF's projects. So as mentioned the same OpenStack API call in theory that works on one vendor should work on all vendors, a Kata container should work the same, etc. > > Where I think it gets a bit more difficult is as we add more projects should those new projects be interoperable with existing projects. In planning the face to face meeting, we had discussed the goal of adding projects that complemented what we had already to create an overall Open IInfrastructure in which case all 'Open Infrastructure' projects should be able to work together. But if more distantly related projects are added I don't think it can be expected to have that same interoperability. > > Thanks, > > Amy > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: >> >> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential >> >> I will skip by-laws angle as it is only means to achieve a goal. >> >> Trademarks really serve two purposes: >> 1. it is a common definition and common language. >> 2. protection and path to branding. >> >> As we moved to OIF, trademark for OIF as the whole does not bring value. But having trademarks for each projects under OIF umbrella make sense. >> >> Suggest we look at two audiences. >> 1. Users/Operators >> 2. Vendors/Providers. >> >> The first ones want to ensure that when they develop apps/tools using OIF projects APIs they will work on "all" vendor/providers "products" (including upstream). >> The second ones deliver products/services based on OIF projects. >> >> Both parties want to have branding for the "contract" between two audiences. >> And interop is just a tool for that branding. >> >> In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of churn and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack projects work together. >> We are past that stage for OpenStack. >> But for other OIF projects we are in various stages. >> Some of them are two new to have multiple implementations or vendor products based on them. >> Some, like Kata Containers, never intended to be standalone. >> >> But we still need branding, but in my view per OIF project. >> My 2c. >> >> Thanks, >> Arkady >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thierry Carrez >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM >> To: foundation at lists.openstack.org; >> foundation-board at lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? >> >> >> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >> >> Julia Kreger wrote: >> > Over the past few weeks I’ve been in a number of discussions >> > regarding some of our most very fun topics. Branding, Trademarks, >> > and Interoperability. >> > [...] >> >> Thanks Julia for starting this timely and important discussion. >> >> I agree that trademarks are not a goal in themselves, they are just means to an end, and periodically revising those end goals is necessary. >> >> To add some historical context, my summary would be that until now the Board has been using trademarks to drive two strategic objectives: >> >> 1- Interoperability: a enduser-centric view of what to expect when interacting with "openstack", driving ideally towards an identical experience. The tactics (driven by RefStack) were focused on making sure a minimal set of APIs were available in products allowed to call themselves "openstack", and try to grow that set over time. >> >> 2- Branding: an ecosystem-centric view of building a set of "compatible" >> products, driving ideally toward establishing a large marketplace. The tactics used for the first objective encouraged products to apply for the trademark programs, which was used as a funnel for the marketplace. >> >> As we enter the OIF era, are those end goals still valuable? Are trademarks the best tool to achieve them? Are there other key goals we should leverage trademarks for? Are the current tactics we use (Refstack and powered-by trademark programs) still valid ? >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Foundation-board mailing list >> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board >> _______________________________________________ >> Foundation-board mailing list >> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board > > _______________________________________________ > Foundation mailing list > Foundation at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation From kurt at garloff.de Sun Dec 6 18:13:39 2020 From: kurt at garloff.de (Kurt Garloff) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 19:13:39 +0100 Subject: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? In-Reply-To: References: <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org> Message-ID: <8EB76F4C-0F7C-4F29-AC6A-51927D513E49@garloff.de> Hi Arkady, Thierry, Julia, On 30 November 2020 17:30:03 CET, "Kanevsky, Arkady" wrote: >Dell Customer Communication - Confidential > [...] >In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of >churn and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack >projects work together. >We are past that stage for OpenStack. I would argue that InterOp came too late. The OpenStack ecosystem had already diverged significantly, when it started. So the choice was between setting a strict standard that would have achieved a very high level of interoperability but risking that most existing OpenStack implementations at the time would not actually meet the standards. Or setting the bar low, so getting most implementations in at the price of InterOp being insufficient to achieve interop for many use cases. The tradeoff was difficult - in the end the bar ended up pretty low but with a plan to increase it over time. That has actually happened, but not enough IMVHO. (And I accept blame for not pushing hard enough and not investing enough effort to increase more when I was working in the InterOp WG.) I really like that the InterOp program was mainly implemented as automated tests - RefStack with the guideline tests is something that I would expect every single OpenStack cloud to have included as a baseline test in their CI. On the board's role: The board in the past was the guardian of the OpenStack brand - thus the approval of the guidelines there. But I agree with Julia - the technical depth required for the decision was not a good fit for a board. What the board would reasonably have done is to discuss the strategy behind the InterOp/Trademark program and leave the technical details to the InterOp group - which it mostly did in practice. Going forward, the board is the guardian of the OIF brand, no doubt, so I would assume that OpenInfra branding/certification/interop/compliance/... programs would still need oversight from the OIF board. For the projects (OpenStack, Kata, StarlingX, Airship, ...) I think that delegating the responsibility for programs around the respective brand to the TC (or a similar body) of that project would make sense. This does not preclude us from also having OpenInfra level programs that integrate several of our projects together. (We should then still delegate the technical details to technical experts and focus board discussions on the strategy of any such programs.) Our main role here is to encourage collaboration, as was correctly said before and I perceive the OSF/OIF staff and board have a good track record here that we should continue. Just my 0.02€. Looking forward to good discussions next week - thanks for bringing this up, Julia! -- Kurt Garloff , Cologne, Germany (Sent from Mobile with K9.) From erin at openstack.org Fri Dec 11 16:48:24 2020 From: erin at openstack.org (Erin Disney) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:48:24 -0600 Subject: [Foundation Board] Virtual Events Survey Message-ID: <60EF8922-6EBE-4BD6-9B39-1283E930D51E@openstack.org> Hey all- As mentioned during the Board meeting on Tuesday, we would greatly appreciate your time to help us gather feedback on your collective virtual event experiences throughout the last year. We’ve put together this brief survey to help us better understand the overall landscape and gauge what is/isn’t working as we head into 2021 and begin to finalize our event strategy/approach. If possible, please complete the survey by Friday, December 18th. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts! Let me know if you have any questions or additional feedback you’d like to provide. Erin Disney Event Marketing OpenStack Foundation erin at openstack.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amy at demarco.com Tue Dec 15 14:53:54 2020 From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:53:54 -0600 Subject: [Foundation Board] [all][interop] Reforming the refstack maintainers team In-Reply-To: <1765341f106.111a3f243109782.5942668683123760803@ghanshyammann.com> References: <1765341f106.111a3f243109782.5942668683123760803@ghanshyammann.com> Message-ID: Let me know if I can help. Thanks, Amy (spotz) On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 1:25 PM Ghanshyam Mann wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > As Goutham mentioned in a separate ML thread[2] that there is no active > maintainer for refstack repo > which we discussed in today's interop meeting[1]. We had a few volunteers > who can help to maintain the > refstack and other interop repo which is good news. > > I would like to call for more volunteers (new or existing ones), if you > are interested to help please do reply > to this email. The role is to maintain the source code of the below repos. > I will propose the ACL changes in infra sometime > next Friday (18th dec) or so. > > For easy maintenance, we thought of merging the below repo core group into > a single group called 'refstack-core' > > - openstack/python-tempestconf > - openstack/refstack > - openstack/refstack-client > - x/ansible-role-refstack-client (moving to osf/ via > https://review.opendev.org/765787) > > Current Volunteers: > - martin (mkopec at redhat.com) > - gouthamr (gouthampravi at gmail.com) > - gmann (gmann at ghanshyammann.com) > - Vida (vhariria at redhat.com) > > - interop-core (we will add this group also which has interop WG chairs so > that it will be easy to maintain in the future changes) > > NOTE: there is no change in the 'interop' repo group which has interop > guidelines and doc etc. > > [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/interop > [2] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-December/019263.html > > -gmann > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: