Open Stack

That's great news, Nic. Looking forward to seeing the demo!



> On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Nicolas Barcet <nicolas at barcet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 17:24 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> > This is how it works now. You're required to run the code.
>> >
>> > Thing is, this is about legal contracts. So enforcement is hazy.
>> > Essentially, if hp signs a trademark usage thing that says we have to
>> > run it, our own lawyers won't let us do different. I think the first
>> > step is to say "OpenStack requires you run the code" ... Then as
>> > violations are brought to our attention, we look in to it.
>> 
>> You mean this?
>> 
>> https://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-cloud/
>> 
>> We could just add "must pass API compatibility tests" to those technical
>> requirements.
>> 
>> We might also list some other projects which "must be included in their
>> entirety in the product".
>> 
>> Would you see any further refinement of the requirements?
>> 
>> If we thought we could go ahead with those requirements and open the
>> program to non-Platinum/Gold members, then great.
>> 
>> That allows us to get down to the real business of deciding which APIs
>> are required and considering changing the list of required projects.
> 
> 
> FYI, we started to work on such an API test tool (based on Tempest) and now have a cute web interface that I'd be happy to demo.  This would not suppress the need to define which functionality are needed to pass, but at least it's a basis which we currently use to know the state of our own deployments.
> 
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20131101/8754b58e/attachment.html>