Open Stack

I don't see compatible as being any easier for us to put in place than OpenStack. Both require us to make the same high level decision about which services need to be either run or implemented. The difference is in enforcement or assertion. I think we can do both.

As OpenStack, I do not think we need to go out of our way to enable people to not collaborate. We can stop it, and I think it's everyone's right to choose NIH and to do whatever, but it's not my job to help them or give them kudos when they do.

Ceph, BTW, I think is a great counter example. They existed first, but went and added integration. That's an example of a positive and helpful alternate impl... But honestly, it's such an exception I think we can all directly make the actual judgement call when we see it.

Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org> wrote:

>On 10/31/2013 07:52 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> I could see us having two trademark programs "OpenStack Cloud" - where
>> you know that the provider is running a "faithful implementation" of
>> OpenStack code - and "OpenStack Compatible Cloud" - where you just know
>> the provider is compatible with the interfaces.
>
>Highlighting a risk with putting 'compatible cloud' first: I have the
>feeling that the worst case scenario would be that this would accelerate
>centrifugal push out of OpenStack code base and into 'improved' code
>bases, but 'compatible at API level'. We may end up with having less
>attractivity for the central pieces of OpenStack.
>
>Not necessarily bad per se, just something to be aware of and manage.
>
>/stef
>
>-- 
>Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>