Open Stack

On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 10:57 -0600, Monty Taylor wrote:
> 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.

How would we express which code is required and how would providers
(self-)certify that they are running that code?

Do we require zero modifications to the required code? If modifications
are allowed, how do we express what level of modifications? Or do we
just make it a good faith "we haven't made any fundamental changes"
assertion?

Are providers required to just run the required code, or actually route
all user requests through that code? Are they allowed they put other
code between the user and the required code?

Or do we require providers to submit a report of what upstream code
they're running and we (a human, on behalf of the Foundation) makes a
judgement call based on guidelines as to whether this is a faithful
implementation? If we go this route - i.e. making it a question of a
judgement call - how do we make those judgement calls totally fair and
transparent? We certainly don't want accusations of us rejecting a
provider because we don't like them.

The "OpenStack compatible" thing *is* either - the self-certification
process is "run these tests, you must pass them all". Totally
unambiguous.

Mark.