[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability

Monty Taylor mordred at inaugust.com
Thu Oct 31 21:24:00 UTC 2013

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.

On a parallel tack, compatible is testable. I think it's also useful. An OpenStack could not be compatible based on config. You could be compatible with being an OpenStack.

Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 13:55 -0500, Mark Collier wrote:
>> The OpenStack Mission is to:
>> To produce the ubiquitous OpenSource Cloud Computing platform that
>> will meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless of size,
>> by being simple to implement and massively scalable.
>> IMHO the operative (action) word is "produce."  This is why I agree
>> with Monty that it is critical that if we start somewhere, it should
>> be with a program based on people running the code, who have a vested
>> interest in the code's continual evolution and survival.  If we take
>> our eye of of that it could invite fragmentation and dilution of any
>> meaning for "what is openstack".
>> That said, it seems to me that technically speaking, we might only
>> need 1 set of tests that could feed the two distinct programs being
>> described ("openstack cloud" and "compatible").  So there might be to
>> two (marketing/business/logo) *programs* with unique requirements
>> other than testing, but with one test suite.
>> Therefore, IMHO, the best place to start is with the development of
>> the test itself while continuing to discuss the ways in which the
>> results might be applied to two distinct (logo) *prorgrams*.  Now I
>> understand that you cant develop a test in the absence of requirements
>> such as which projects to include, but we could probably come up with
>> a sensible starting point and add additional coverage over time
>> (increasing test coverage not necessarily implying that each must pass
>> to qualify for a specific program).
>Ok, I'd be totally cool with all that ... if I had any idea how we were
>going to go about creating "a program based on people running the code".
>I see a near bottomless pit of issues we'd need to work through before
>putting that into place and I don't want to block making
>interoperability progress on these issues.
>Am I missing something? What's (roughly) your take on how such a program
>would work?
>To be clear, I mean - assuming we know what code should be required to
>run - how do we express those requirements precisely and certify that
>providers are meeting them?

More information about the Foundation mailing list