Open Stack

Randy Bias wrote:
> [...] 
> I see it as a simple issue: we either stifle choice OR we facilitate
> choice and compromise on interoperability.
> [...]

Yes, that's another way to frame the question. My point in the original
email is that I know there are, in OpenStack, strong proponents of both
end goals. We shouldn't delay anymore that necessary discussion on what
should be our common long-term goal.

That said, I like Nicolas's point about the various types of trademark
usage (project names, distributions, deployments) and that slightly
different rules could be used for each of those. I also agree with Boris
that trademark usage is not the only weapon we could use to encourage
portability of workloads. And I like your point that even in the case of
"total interoperability", specific deployment choices will affect
portability, so unless you build architectural clones (which I think
nobody actually wants), interoperability will never be perfect.

To come back to your point, IMHO there is value in maximizing the
*feature set* that is common between deployments, even if deployment
architectures differ. You might need to adjust your workload to go from
a flat to a multi_host deployment, or have your app support both cases.
But if you rely on Heat API on the first one and the other one doesn't
propose Heat at all, you just have to rewrite your workload completely.

Cheers,

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)