From amy at demarco.com  Tue Dec  1 19:36:30 2020
From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:36:30 -0600
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] [board][interop] Is
 it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB4695BEE410BF5082F9477CADF9F50@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAF7gwdjJL1gZsgg7JS8FEpWqeT_mPb8ZC8dcezgRaz2ZG2sxCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695BEE410BF5082F9477CADF9F50@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAFs83QqBEFtqmA-JanTZvuW4sEgJCOfbj5Hm6xVjr44H-3QZ5g@mail.gmail.com>

Like Arkady I think branding and trademarking should be at the Project
level but also with an overall brand and trademark for the Foundation.
Interoperability is a more difficult thing in my mind. I think we should
still have interoperability between vendors who offer a product based on
one of the OIF's projects. So as mentioned the same OpenStack API call in
theory that works on one vendor should work on all vendors, a Kata
container should work the same, etc.

Where I think it gets a bit more difficult is as we add more projects
should those new projects be interoperable with existing projects. In
planning the face to face meeting, we had discussed the goal of adding
projects that complemented what we had already to create an overall Open
IInfrastructure in which case all 'Open Infrastructure' projects should be
able to work together. But if more distantly related projects are added I
don't think it can be expected to have that same interoperability.

Thanks,

Amy

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>
wrote:

> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>
> I will skip by-laws angle as it is only means to achieve a goal.
>
> Trademarks really serve two purposes:
> 1. it is a common definition and common language.
> 2. protection and path to branding.
>
> As we moved to OIF, trademark for OIF as the whole does not bring value.
> But having trademarks for each projects under OIF umbrella make sense.
>
> Suggest we look at two audiences.
> 1. Users/Operators
> 2. Vendors/Providers.
>
> The first ones want to ensure that when they develop apps/tools using OIF
> projects APIs they will work on "all" vendor/providers "products"
> (including upstream).
> The second ones deliver products/services based on OIF projects.
>
> Both parties want to have branding for the "contract" between two
> audiences.
> And interop is just a tool for that branding.
>
> In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of churn
> and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack projects work
> together.
> We are past that stage for OpenStack.
> But for other OIF projects we are in various stages.
> Some of them are two new to have multiple implementations or vendor
> products based on them.
> Some, like Kata Containers, never intended to be standalone.
>
> But we still need branding, but in my view per OIF project.
> My 2c.
>
> Thanks,
> Arkady
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM
> To: foundation at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is
> it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Julia Kreger wrote:
> > Over the past few weeks I’ve been in a number of discussions regarding
> > some of our most very fun topics. Branding, Trademarks, and
> > Interoperability.
> > [...]
>
> Thanks Julia for starting this timely and important discussion.
>
> I agree that trademarks are not a goal in themselves, they are just means
> to an end, and periodically revising those end goals is necessary.
>
> To add some historical context, my summary would be that until now the
> Board has been using trademarks to drive two strategic objectives:
>
> 1- Interoperability: a enduser-centric view of what to expect when
> interacting with "openstack", driving ideally towards an identical
> experience. The tactics (driven by RefStack) were focused on making sure a
> minimal set of APIs were available in products allowed to call themselves
> "openstack", and try to grow that set over time.
>
> 2- Branding: an ecosystem-centric view of building a set of "compatible"
> products, driving ideally toward establishing a large marketplace. The
> tactics used for the first objective encouraged products to apply for the
> trademark programs, which was used as a funnel for the marketplace.
>
> As we enter the OIF era, are those end goals still valuable? Are
> trademarks the best tool to achieve them? Are there other key goals we
> should leverage trademarks for? Are the current tactics we use (Refstack
> and powered-by trademark programs) still valid ?
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201201/d013f8ae/attachment.html>

From amy at demarco.com  Fri Dec  4 18:17:22 2020
From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 12:17:22 -0600
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] Diversity & Inclusion Meeting
	12/7
Message-ID: <CAFs83QpOC-9SdOZLhokDy3Q34eD-RWQghpXka5QaguJsDSByaQ@mail.gmail.com>

The Diversity & Inclusion WG invites members of all OSF projects to our
next meeting Monday, December 7th, at 17:00 UTC in the
#openstack-diversity channel.
The agenda can be found at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/diversity
-wg-agenda.

 Please feel free to add any other topics you wish to discuss at the
meeting.

Thanks,
Amy (spotz)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201204/161f73f8/attachment.html>

From juliaashleykreger at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 21:07:17 2020
From: juliaashleykreger at gmail.com (Julia Kreger)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:07:17 -0800
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] [board][interop] Is
 it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?
In-Reply-To: <CAFs83QqBEFtqmA-JanTZvuW4sEgJCOfbj5Hm6xVjr44H-3QZ5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF7gwdjJL1gZsgg7JS8FEpWqeT_mPb8ZC8dcezgRaz2ZG2sxCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695BEE410BF5082F9477CADF9F50@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFs83QqBEFtqmA-JanTZvuW4sEgJCOfbj5Hm6xVjr44H-3QZ5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF7gwdgVO=ibt=bmkH+MmfnXASPuhm-umbB_YYvYXrn+Pq0X6Q@mail.gmail.com>

In reading the replies thus far, I tend to agree branding and
trademark should fall within the project scope. What I mean by that in
my case, is I think the projects themselves need to express what is
important to them. Perhaps that should become part of what a project
is expected to state?  A project should have the ability to state
their own desired destiny along with their scoping and mission
statements (if present). I think the same could be said for
interoperability and as we move forward into the OIF.

Maybe a reasonable thing is for the Foundation to do the basic needful
in terms of marks (trademark, branding, etc.); However, then allow the
project to determine their own next steps. We don't want to be in a
situation where a project joins us and then has to rename/rebrand due
to a conflict down the road due to something unforeseen.

I think it is up to the board to foster a larger open infrastructure
ecosystem. Not only through our actions on the board, but the
encouragement and voices we have outside the context of a board
meeting.

Where the topic of fostering a larger open infrastructure ecosystem
leads, at least in my mind, is an area that is vague when I start to
think of "How?". That is, in part, because I think we would want to
encourage cross-community integrations and co-operation to reach
logical conclusions and ultimately solutions. At a high level, that
seems ideal to myself. What does not seem ideal is detailed technical
requirements being approved by the board. In my opinion, we should set
the direction and help enable that to be reached easily. The logical
conclusion from my point of view is that projects should be able to
define what is interoperability to them. In some cases, it could be
"Adhere and conform to x, y, z standards", or "able to pass x test",
or "Able to be leveraged for $purpose".

Amy raises a great point that things will get more difficult, if not
impossible, if we attempt to apply the same or expanding detailed
requirements upon new and existing projects.

-Julia

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:39 AM Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com> wrote:
>
> Like Arkady I think branding and trademarking should be at the Project level but also with an overall brand and trademark for the Foundation. Interoperability is a more difficult thing in my mind. I think we should still have interoperability between vendors who offer a product based on one of the OIF's projects. So as mentioned the same OpenStack API call in theory that works on one vendor should work on all vendors, a Kata container should work the same, etc.
>
> Where I think it gets a bit more difficult is as we add more projects should those new projects be interoperable with existing projects. In planning the face to face meeting, we had discussed the goal of adding projects that complemented what we had already to create an overall Open IInfrastructure in which case all 'Open Infrastructure' projects should be able to work together. But if more distantly related projects are added I don't think it can be expected to have that same interoperability.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>> I will skip by-laws angle as it is only means to achieve a goal.
>>
>> Trademarks really serve two purposes:
>> 1. it is a common definition and common language.
>> 2. protection and path to branding.
>>
>> As we moved to OIF, trademark for OIF as the whole does not bring value. But having trademarks for each projects under OIF umbrella make sense.
>>
>> Suggest we look at two audiences.
>> 1. Users/Operators
>> 2. Vendors/Providers.
>>
>> The first ones want to ensure that when they develop apps/tools using OIF projects APIs they will work on "all" vendor/providers "products" (including upstream).
>> The second ones deliver products/services based on OIF projects.
>>
>> Both parties want to have branding for the "contract" between two audiences.
>> And interop is just a tool for that branding.
>>
>> In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of churn and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack projects work together.
>> We are past that stage for OpenStack.
>> But for other OIF projects we are in various stages.
>> Some of them are two new to have multiple implementations or vendor products based on them.
>> Some, like Kata Containers, never intended to be standalone.
>>
>> But we still need branding, but in my view per OIF project.
>> My 2c.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arkady
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM
>> To: foundation at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> Julia Kreger wrote:
>> > Over the past few weeks I’ve been in a number of discussions regarding
>> > some of our most very fun topics. Branding, Trademarks, and
>> > Interoperability.
>> > [...]
>>
>> Thanks Julia for starting this timely and important discussion.
>>
>> I agree that trademarks are not a goal in themselves, they are just means to an end, and periodically revising those end goals is necessary.
>>
>> To add some historical context, my summary would be that until now the Board has been using trademarks to drive two strategic objectives:
>>
>> 1- Interoperability: a enduser-centric view of what to expect when interacting with "openstack", driving ideally towards an identical experience. The tactics (driven by RefStack) were focused on making sure a minimal set of APIs were available in products allowed to call themselves "openstack", and try to grow that set over time.
>>
>> 2- Branding: an ecosystem-centric view of building a set of "compatible"
>> products, driving ideally toward establishing a large marketplace. The tactics used for the first objective encouraged products to apply for the trademark programs, which was used as a funnel for the marketplace.
>>
>> As we enter the OIF era, are those end goals still valuable? Are trademarks the best tool to achieve them? Are there other key goals we should leverage trademarks for? Are the current tactics we use (Refstack and powered-by trademark programs) still valid ?
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Fri Dec  4 21:40:07 2020
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 21:40:07 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] [board][interop] Is
 it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?
In-Reply-To: <CAF7gwdgVO=ibt=bmkH+MmfnXASPuhm-umbB_YYvYXrn+Pq0X6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF7gwdjJL1gZsgg7JS8FEpWqeT_mPb8ZC8dcezgRaz2ZG2sxCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695BEE410BF5082F9477CADF9F50@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFs83QqBEFtqmA-JanTZvuW4sEgJCOfbj5Hm6xVjr44H-3QZ5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF7gwdgVO=ibt=bmkH+MmfnXASPuhm-umbB_YYvYXrn+Pq0X6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM5PR19MB4695FC8C55FFD6EC27FADF1EF9F10@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Julia,
Agree with you except for "integrated" projects like OpenStack.
If we are to foster integrated solutions that include multiple projects they need to be branded and trademarked together.
That is very complication starts for projects that are both standalone and integrated.
We may have to go with multiple trademarks for a single solution/ integrated project.

Something to discuss at the board.
But I also think we should pull in TC/UC team for it.
Thanks,
Arkady

-----Original Message-----
From: Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 3:07 PM
To: Amy Marrich
Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; Thierry Carrez; foundation at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

In reading the replies thus far, I tend to agree branding and trademark should fall within the project scope. What I mean by that in my case, is I think the projects themselves need to express what is important to them. Perhaps that should become part of what a project is expected to state?  A project should have the ability to state their own desired destiny along with their scoping and mission statements (if present). I think the same could be said for interoperability and as we move forward into the OIF.

Maybe a reasonable thing is for the Foundation to do the basic needful in terms of marks (trademark, branding, etc.); However, then allow the project to determine their own next steps. We don't want to be in a situation where a project joins us and then has to rename/rebrand due to a conflict down the road due to something unforeseen.

I think it is up to the board to foster a larger open infrastructure ecosystem. Not only through our actions on the board, but the encouragement and voices we have outside the context of a board meeting.

Where the topic of fostering a larger open infrastructure ecosystem leads, at least in my mind, is an area that is vague when I start to think of "How?". That is, in part, because I think we would want to encourage cross-community integrations and co-operation to reach logical conclusions and ultimately solutions. At a high level, that seems ideal to myself. What does not seem ideal is detailed technical requirements being approved by the board. In my opinion, we should set the direction and help enable that to be reached easily. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that projects should be able to define what is interoperability to them. In some cases, it could be "Adhere and conform to x, y, z standards", or "able to pass x test", or "Able to be leveraged for $purpose".

Amy raises a great point that things will get more difficult, if not impossible, if we attempt to apply the same or expanding detailed requirements upon new and existing projects.

-Julia

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:39 AM Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com> wrote:
>
> Like Arkady I think branding and trademarking should be at the Project level but also with an overall brand and trademark for the Foundation. Interoperability is a more difficult thing in my mind. I think we should still have interoperability between vendors who offer a product based on one of the OIF's projects. So as mentioned the same OpenStack API call in theory that works on one vendor should work on all vendors, a Kata container should work the same, etc.
>
> Where I think it gets a bit more difficult is as we add more projects should those new projects be interoperable with existing projects. In planning the face to face meeting, we had discussed the goal of adding projects that complemented what we had already to create an overall Open IInfrastructure in which case all 'Open Infrastructure' projects should be able to work together. But if more distantly related projects are added I don't think it can be expected to have that same interoperability.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Kanevsky, Arkady <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>>
>> I will skip by-laws angle as it is only means to achieve a goal.
>>
>> Trademarks really serve two purposes:
>> 1. it is a common definition and common language.
>> 2. protection and path to branding.
>>
>> As we moved to OIF, trademark for OIF as the whole does not bring value. But having trademarks for each projects under OIF umbrella make sense.
>>
>> Suggest we look at two audiences.
>> 1. Users/Operators
>> 2. Vendors/Providers.
>>
>> The first ones want to ensure that when they develop apps/tools using OIF projects APIs they will work on "all" vendor/providers "products" (including upstream).
>> The second ones deliver products/services based on OIF projects.
>>
>> Both parties want to have branding for the "contract" between two audiences.
>> And interop is just a tool for that branding.
>>
>> In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of churn and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack projects work together.
>> We are past that stage for OpenStack.
>> But for other OIF projects we are in various stages.
>> Some of them are two new to have multiple implementations or vendor products based on them.
>> Some, like Kata Containers, never intended to be standalone.
>>
>> But we still need branding, but in my view per OIF project.
>> My 2c.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arkady
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM
>> To: foundation at lists.openstack.org; 
>> foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> Julia Kreger wrote:
>> > Over the past few weeks I’ve been in a number of discussions 
>> > regarding some of our most very fun topics. Branding, Trademarks, 
>> > and Interoperability.
>> > [...]
>>
>> Thanks Julia for starting this timely and important discussion.
>>
>> I agree that trademarks are not a goal in themselves, they are just means to an end, and periodically revising those end goals is necessary.
>>
>> To add some historical context, my summary would be that until now the Board has been using trademarks to drive two strategic objectives:
>>
>> 1- Interoperability: a enduser-centric view of what to expect when interacting with "openstack", driving ideally towards an identical experience. The tactics (driven by RefStack) were focused on making sure a minimal set of APIs were available in products allowed to call themselves "openstack", and try to grow that set over time.
>>
>> 2- Branding: an ecosystem-centric view of building a set of "compatible"
>> products, driving ideally toward establishing a large marketplace. The tactics used for the first objective encouraged products to apply for the trademark programs, which was used as a funnel for the marketplace.
>>
>> As we enter the OIF era, are those end goals still valuable? Are trademarks the best tool to achieve them? Are there other key goals we should leverage trademarks for? Are the current tactics we use (Refstack and powered-by trademark programs) still valid ?
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

From amy at demarco.com  Mon Dec  7 18:04:53 2020
From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:04:53 -0600
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] Diversity and Inclusion WG
	Meeting Change for January
Message-ID: <CAFs83QreMJdfDgFBOUCGwexBHybiOd0N5vP9NB9extaMUka_JQ@mail.gmail.com>

Due to the end of year holidays and the fact some people may still be out
we will be moving our January meeting. As our backup meeting date is on
Martin Luther King Day, the WG has selected January 11 to meet in IRC.

As always I'll send out a reminder in the days leading up to the meeting.

Thanks,

Amy (spotz)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201207/3ffc5c9c/attachment.html>

From kurt at garloff.de  Sun Dec  6 18:13:39 2020
From: kurt at garloff.de (Kurt Garloff)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 19:13:39 +0100
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] [board][interop] Is
	it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB4695BEE410BF5082F9477CADF9F50@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAF7gwdjJL1gZsgg7JS8FEpWqeT_mPb8ZC8dcezgRaz2ZG2sxCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3d99f28e-5f4e-2828-2da1-b098f82f54a8@openstack.org>
 <DM5PR19MB4695BEE410BF5082F9477CADF9F50@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <8EB76F4C-0F7C-4F29-AC6A-51927D513E49@garloff.de>

Hi Arkady, Thierry, Julia, 

On 30 November 2020 17:30:03 CET, "Kanevsky, Arkady" <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote:
>Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>
[...] 
>In my view, interop cam at the right time when there were a lot of
>churn and a lot of implementations, and unclearness which openstack
>projects work together.
>We are past that stage for OpenStack.

I would argue that InterOp came too late.
The OpenStack ecosystem had already diverged significantly, when it started. 

So the choice was between setting a strict standard that would have achieved a very high level of interoperability but risking that most existing OpenStack implementations at the time would not actually meet the standards. Or setting the bar low, so getting most implementations in at the price of InterOp being insufficient to achieve interop for many use cases. The tradeoff was difficult - in the end the bar ended up pretty low but with a plan to increase it over time. That has actually happened, but not enough IMVHO. (And I accept blame for not pushing hard enough and not investing enough effort to increase more when I was working in the InterOp WG.) 

I really like that the InterOp program was mainly implemented as automated tests - RefStack with the guideline tests is something that I would expect every single OpenStack cloud to have included as a baseline test in their CI. 

On the board's role:

The board in the past was the guardian of the OpenStack brand - thus the approval of the guidelines there. But I agree with Julia - the technical depth required for the decision was not a good fit for a board. What the board would reasonably have done is to discuss the strategy behind the InterOp/Trademark program and leave the technical details to the InterOp group - which it mostly did in practice. 

Going forward, the board is the guardian of the OIF brand, no doubt, so I would assume that OpenInfra branding/certification/interop/compliance/... programs would still need oversight from the OIF board.

For the projects (OpenStack, Kata, StarlingX, Airship, ...) I think that delegating the responsibility for programs around the respective brand to the TC (or a similar body) of that project would make sense.

This does not preclude us from also having OpenInfra level programs that integrate several of our projects together. (We should then still delegate the technical details to technical experts and focus board discussions on the strategy of any such programs.)
Our main role here is to encourage collaboration, as was correctly said before and I perceive the OSF/OIF staff and board have a good track record here that we should continue. 

Just my 0.02€.

Looking forward to good discussions next week - thanks for bringing this up, Julia! 
-- 
Kurt Garloff <kurt at garloff.de>, Cologne, Germany
(Sent from Mobile with K9.)


From kennelson11 at gmail.com  Mon Dec 14 22:20:26 2020
From: kennelson11 at gmail.com (Kendall Nelson)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 14:20:26 -0800
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
Message-ID: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello!

So now that the OpenStack Foundation is now the Open Infrastructure
Foundation, I think it time to take a look at some of the IRC channels we
use. There are a few that come to mind that are used by the larger
Foundation community- not just OpenStack anymore- that should probably be
renamed[0].

Below is a list of the channels that come to mind and proposed new channel
names. Please add to the list or suggest alternative names if you hate what
I've come up with. My goal is to process these renames by the end of the
year.

- #openstack-ptg  -> #oif-ptg
- #openstack-forum -> #oif-forum
- #openstack-diversity -> #oif-diversity
- #openstack-board -> #oif-board
- #openstack-foundation -> #oif
- #openinfra-summit -> #oif-summit

Look forward to everyone's thoughts!

-Kendall (diablo_rojo)

[0]
https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201214/2c17abc3/attachment.html>

From jungleboyj at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 16:25:37 2020
From: jungleboyj at gmail.com (Jay Bryant)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:25:37 -0600
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>


On 12/14/2020 4:20 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:
> Hello!
>
> So now that the OpenStack Foundation is now the Open Infrastructure 
> Foundation, I think it time to take a look at some of the IRC channels 
> we use. There are a few that come to mind that are used by the larger 
> Foundation community- not just OpenStack anymore- that should probably 
> be renamed[0].
>
> Below is a list of the channels that come to mind and proposed new 
> channel names. Please add to the list or suggest alternative names if 
> you hate what I've come up with. My goal is to process these renames 
> by the end of the year.
>
> - #openstack-ptg  -> #oif-ptg
> - #openstack-forum -> #oif-forum
> - #openstack-diversity -> #oif-diversity
> - #openstack-board -> #oif-board
> - #openstack-foundation -> #oif
> - #openinfra-summit -> #oif-summit
>
Kendall,

Thanks for proposing these.

I think standardizing around 'oif' makes sense.  It is a little terse, 
but can't come up with another combination that doesn't result in 
something unwieldy.

Jay


> Look forward to everyone's thoughts!
>
> -Kendall (diablo_rojo)
>
> [0] 
> https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel 
> <https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201215/32d9c013/attachment.html>

From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Tue Dec 15 16:36:55 2020
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:36:55 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Agree.
Suggest to add #oif-interop.
Wonder if #oif that replaces foundation is good. Feels that you want to add another word.
Like general.

From: Jay Bryant <jungleboyj at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:26 AM
To: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]


On 12/14/2020 4:20 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:
Hello!

So now that the OpenStack Foundation is now the Open Infrastructure Foundation, I think it time to take a look at some of the IRC channels we use. There are a few that come to mind that are used by the larger Foundation community- not just OpenStack anymore- that should probably be renamed[0].

Below is a list of the channels that come to mind and proposed new channel names. Please add to the list or suggest alternative names if you hate what I've come up with. My goal is to process these renames by the end of the year.

- #openstack-ptg  -> #oif-ptg
- #openstack-forum -> #oif-forum
- #openstack-diversity -> #oif-diversity
- #openstack-board -> #oif-board
- #openstack-foundation -> #oif
- #openinfra-summit -> #oif-summit


Kendall,

Thanks for proposing these.

I think standardizing around 'oif' makes sense.  It is a little terse, but can't come up with another combination that doesn't result in something unwieldy.

Jay


Look forward to everyone's thoughts!

-Kendall (diablo_rojo)

[0] https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel


_______________________________________________

Foundation mailing list

Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20201215/80933fc9/attachment-0001.html>

From fungi at yuggoth.org  Tue Dec 15 17:01:58 2020
From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 17:01:58 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>

On 2020-12-15 16:36:55 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
[...]
> Wonder if #oif that replaces foundation is good. Feels that you
> want to add another word. Like general.
[...]

The way channel namespace authority works in Freenode is that they
want to see that namespace as a registered channel, so we need a
#oif channel regardless. If we don't use if for general OIF
discussions, then people are still likely to wander into it from
time to time and ask questions. It's really a question of whether we
have #oif *and* #oif-general (and people remain confused on which
one should be used for general OIF discussion), or just #oif.

You'll note that for the #openstack channel serves this same purpose
for the OpenStack community's channel namespace on Freenode, and
gets used primarily for general user questions.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201215/c0a1c41c/attachment.sig>

From ryanbeisner at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 18:20:58 2020
From: ryanbeisner at gmail.com (Ryan Beisner)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:20:58 -0600
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
Message-ID: <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>

My $0.02 over lunch:  I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move with the
same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
Cheers,
Ryan


On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:02 AM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-15 16:36:55 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> [...]
> > Wonder if #oif that replaces foundation is good. Feels that you
> > want to add another word. Like general.
> [...]
>
> The way channel namespace authority works in Freenode is that they
> want to see that namespace as a registered channel, so we need a
> #oif channel regardless. If we don't use if for general OIF
> discussions, then people are still likely to wander into it from
> time to time and ask questions. It's really a question of whether we
> have #oif *and* #oif-general (and people remain confused on which
> one should be used for general OIF discussion), or just #oif.
>
> You'll note that for the #openstack channel serves this same purpose
> for the OpenStack community's channel namespace on Freenode, and
> gets used primarily for general user questions.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201215/b37330b2/attachment.html>

From fungi at yuggoth.org  Tue Dec 15 18:32:25 2020
From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:32:25 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>

On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> My $0.02 over lunch:  I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
[...]

The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201215/35f6c6e3/attachment.sig>

From amy at demarco.com  Tue Dec 15 18:50:08 2020
From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:50:08 -0600
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
Message-ID: <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Kendall and Jeremy,

I'm good with the suggested name changes especially with that added
information the openinfra isn't available. We should definitely keep it
short so don't feel going to openinfratructure is a good alternative even
if it is more obvious. I do think the more we use OIF vs OSF it'll be more
natural for people to look for it.

Thanks,

Amy (spotz)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > My $0.02 over lunch:  I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> [...]
>
> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201215/29a3c936/attachment.html>

From wes at openstack.org  Tue Dec 15 19:21:55 2020
From: wes at openstack.org (Wes Wilson)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:21:55 -0800
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>

One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization that has a trademark on “OIF”. While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.

We have started to replace the acronym with “OpenInfra Foundation” and “OpenInfra” depending on the use case. Another option to consider that we’re using for twitter handle, url, and similar spots is “OpenInfraDev”. 

Thanks,
Wes

> On Dec 15, 2020, at 10:50 AM, Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com> wrote:
> 
> Kendall and Jeremy,
> 
> I'm good with the suggested name changes especially with that added information the openinfra isn't available. We should definitely keep it short so don't feel going to openinfratructure is a good alternative even if it is more obvious. I do think the more we use OIF vs OSF it'll be more natural for people to look for it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Amy (spotz)
> 
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org <mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org>> wrote:
> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > My $0.02 over lunch:  I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> [...]
> 
> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ <https://opensourceinfra.org/> community.
> -- 
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201215/609149dc/attachment-0001.html>

From fungi at yuggoth.org  Tue Dec 15 19:38:33 2020
From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 19:38:33 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2@yuggoth.org>

On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
> that has a trademark on “OIF”.

Presumably that's this organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum

> While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
[...]

Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
channels.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201215/a658323a/attachment.sig>

From amy at demarco.com  Tue Dec 15 20:54:45 2020
From: amy at demarco.com (Amy Marrich)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:54:45 -0600
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2@yuggoth.org>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
 <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2@yuggoth.org>
Message-ID: <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ohh what about opninfra?:)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> > One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> > our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
> > that has a trademark on “OIF”.
>
> Presumably that's this organization:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum
>
> > While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> > to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> > advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
> [...]
>
> Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
> I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
> good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
> channels.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201215/b025b3f0/attachment.html>

From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Tue Dec 15 22:07:43 2020
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:07:43 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
 <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM5PR19MB4695E45174B458726B1A40F2F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

What about #openinfra?

From: Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Jeremy Stanley
Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Ohh what about opninfra?:)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org<mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org>> wrote:
On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> our use of "OIF" to reduce confusion with another organization
> that has a trademark on "OIF".

Presumably that's this organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum

> While we won't be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> advised to not use it in "attention getting" places.
[...]

Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
channels.
--
Jeremy Stanley
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20201215/a4f8e71c/attachment.html>

From fungi at yuggoth.org  Tue Dec 15 22:11:45 2020
From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:11:45 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR19MB4695E45174B458726B1A40F2F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
 <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E45174B458726B1A40F2F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20201215221145.owmwdzdjkjnwv533@yuggoth.org>

On 2020-12-15 22:07:43 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> What about #openinfra?
[...]

Excepted from another of my earlier replies (5 messages upthread),
"the #openinfra channel is already taken by the separate
https://opensourceinfra.org/ community."
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201215/041ec094/attachment-0001.sig>

From Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com  Tue Dec 15 22:37:04 2020
From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com (Kanevsky, Arkady)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:37:04 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <20201215221145.owmwdzdjkjnwv533@yuggoth.org>
References: <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
 <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695E45174B458726B1A40F2F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215221145.owmwdzdjkjnwv533@yuggoth.org>
Message-ID: <BL0PR1901MB469148022D09EFCF5E80B4C1F9C60@BL0PR1901MB4691.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Thanks Jeremy.
#infraopen?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:12 PM
To: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames

On 2020-12-15 22:07:43 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> What about #openinfra?
[...]

Excepted from another of my earlier replies (5 messages upthread), "the #openinfra channel is already taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community."
--
Jeremy Stanley


From juliaashleykreger at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 23:15:22 2020
From: juliaashleykreger at gmail.com (Julia Kreger)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:15:22 -0800
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
 <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF7gwdgwYiuj_SJtc9XCzTS98qzcWt9oJajjRnQPEqwMf_TT3g@mail.gmail.com>

I think #openinfra would be best, as it aligns with the web presence,
openinfra.dev.

At least that is my $0.02.

-Julia

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:57 PM Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com> wrote:
>
> Ohh what about opninfra?:)
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
>> > One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
>> > our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
>> > that has a trademark on “OIF”.
>>
>> Presumably that's this organization:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum
>>
>> > While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
>> > to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
>> > advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
>> [...]
>>
>> Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
>> I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
>> good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
>> channels.
>> --
>> Jeremy Stanley
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


From pramchan at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 16 02:31:26 2020
From: pramchan at yahoo.com (prakash RAMCHANDRAN)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 02:31:26 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Digest, Vol 108, Issue 7
In-Reply-To: <mailman.34896.1608070308.1283.foundation@lists.openstack.org>
References: <mailman.34896.1608070308.1283.foundation@lists.openstack.org>
Message-ID: <124623789.1179778.1608085886671@mail.yahoo.com>

+1 for #openinfra

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
    Send Foundation mailing list submissions to
    foundation at lists.openstack.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    foundation-request at lists.openstack.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    foundation-owner at lists.openstack.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Foundation digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: [all] IRC Channel Renames (Jeremy Stanley)
  2. Re: [all] IRC Channel Renames (Amy Marrich)
  3. Re: [all] IRC Channel Renames (Kanevsky, Arkady)
  4. Re: [all] IRC Channel Renames (Jeremy Stanley)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 19:38:33 +0000
From: Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>
To: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
Message-ID: <20201215193832.k3hjq22yuagzuer2 at yuggoth.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
> that has a trademark on “OIF”.

Presumably that's this organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum

> While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
[...]

Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
channels.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201215/a658323a/attachment-0001.sig>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:54:45 -0600
From: Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com>
To: Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>
Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
Message-ID:
    <CAFs83QpM_HUjYmYq_Ue9Otzq5zU=BUU+Nsmi2-QZ00DFYs_QGQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Ohh what about opninfra?:)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> > One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> > our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
> > that has a trademark on “OIF”.
>
> Presumably that's this organization:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum
>
> > While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> > to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> > advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
> [...]
>
> Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
> I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
> good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
> channels.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201215/b025b3f0/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:07:43 +0000
From: "Kanevsky, Arkady" <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com>
To: Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com>, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>
Cc: "foundation at lists.openstack.org" <foundation at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
Message-ID:
    <DM5PR19MB4695E45174B458726B1A40F2F9C60 at DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

What about #openinfra?

From: Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Jeremy Stanley
Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Ohh what about opninfra?:)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org<mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org>> wrote:
On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> our use of "OIF" to reduce confusion with another organization
> that has a trademark on "OIF".

Presumably that's this organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum

> While we won't be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> advised to not use it in "attention getting" places.
[...]

Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
channels.
--
Jeremy Stanley
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20201215/a4f8e71c/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:11:45 +0000
From: Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>
To: foundation at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
Message-ID: <20201215221145.owmwdzdjkjnwv533 at yuggoth.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 2020-12-15 22:07:43 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> What about #openinfra?
[...]

Excepted from another of my earlier replies (5 messages upthread),
"the #openinfra channel is already taken by the separate
https://opensourceinfra.org/ community."
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201215/041ec094/attachment.sig>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


------------------------------

End of Foundation Digest, Vol 108, Issue 7
******************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201216/a7b1c2a8/attachment-0001.html>

From j.harbott at x-ion.de  Wed Dec 16 08:03:28 2020
From: j.harbott at x-ion.de (Dr. Jens Harbott)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 09:03:28 +0100
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
Message-ID: <CADr68WZ=iJ4095s9X4RdiAvTmz=SB65kRT5qTp6zvvHa+Uq-bA@mail.gmail.com>

Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>:
>
> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > My $0.02 over lunch:  I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> [...]
>
> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.

It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?

My fallback suggestion would be to build on the #opendev channel which
we already have in active usage and use that as a prefix for the other
channels.


From fungi at yuggoth.org  Wed Dec 16 18:27:22 2020
From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 18:27:22 +0000
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <CADr68WZ=iJ4095s9X4RdiAvTmz=SB65kRT5qTp6zvvHa+Uq-bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CADr68WZ=iJ4095s9X4RdiAvTmz=SB65kRT5qTp6zvvHa+Uq-bA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201216182722.5as2n4trfqqfoqyg@yuggoth.org>

On 2020-12-16 09:03:28 +0100 (+0100), Dr. Jens Harbott wrote:
> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>:
> >
> > On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > > My $0.02 over lunch:  I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> > [...]
> >
> > The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> > namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> > taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
> 
> It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
> ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
> list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
> contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?

It might seem like that, but there are plenty of other subscribers
still on the mailing list and people still in the IRC channel, me
among them, even if we're not terribly active in there these days.
Spencer was actually the one who registered the IRC channel (almost
5 years ago now), and Brian and Clint are also chanops in addition
to Lyz. I'm happy to reach out to them and ask whether they're
interested in having that become an Open Infrastructure Foundation
general discussion channel or something, but keep in mind that not
all the people involved in that community are necessarily fans of
OpenStack or the foundation (even some who were previously
contributors to OpenStack or to the Project Infrastructure team).

Some concern was raised in that channel in mid-2018, back around the
time OSF announced it was renaming the OpenStack Summit to the Open
Infrastructure Summit and we started coordinating Open
Infrastructure Days events. One participant cited the existence of
the then-new (but now entirely defunct) openinfra.events site as an
indication the foundation could attempt to usurp the "openinfra"
name and possibly the related IRC channel. These sentiments may
still linger.

> My fallback suggestion would be to build on the #opendev channel which
> we already have in active usage and use that as a prefix for the other
> channels.

I'd be even more concerned about this. We have enough trouble
reminding people that the OpenDev Collaboratory is a community-run
effort. For starters we're unlikely to want to give up the #opendev
channel to become a general foundation discussion channel, so will
end up fielding misdirected questions about the foundation there;
but also using lots of #opendev-* channels for foundation-specific
topics (when other foundation represented projects use their own
separate channel namespaces) would make the collaboratory seem much
more tightly coupled to the foundation staff and board of directors,
even though nearly none of the foundation's own software development
or server management happens in OpenDev.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20201216/7b6e3fa4/attachment.sig>

From kurt at garloff.de  Wed Dec 16 05:48:22 2020
From: kurt at garloff.de (Kurt Garloff)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 06:48:22 +0100
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CAFs83Qqv665vDdC8CPLgx6AZrsdXLJceBFX7HLk20ssCz-EgRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DE17246-AF34-4820-B130-558C70177C76@openstack.org>
Message-ID: <87E0776F-17B2-4375-90E7-7828C31C117A@garloff.de>

Hi Wes,

Is this really a blocker for oif for IRC?
Just wondering, as IRC is not very visible/popular for many communities... 

OpenInfra would be 2nd best (but unavailable) which leaves us with OpenInfraDev otherwise. 

-- Kurt 


On 15 December 2020 20:21:55 CET, Wes Wilson <wes at openstack.org> wrote:
>One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize our
>use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization that has a
>trademark on “OIF”. While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from
>using the acronym to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used,
>we have been advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
>
>We have started to replace the acronym with “OpenInfra Foundation” and
>“OpenInfra” depending on the use case. Another option to consider that
>we’re using for twitter handle, url, and similar spots is
>“OpenInfraDev”. 
>

-- 
Kurt Garloff <kurt at garloff.de>, Cologne, Germany
(Sent from Mobile with K9.)


From thierry at openstack.org  Thu Dec 17 11:43:01 2020
From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:43:01 +0100
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames
In-Reply-To: <20201216182722.5as2n4trfqqfoqyg@yuggoth.org>
References: <CAJ6yrQiLOfXiCQKEP5YpQshD3o+m=2SBCU=4g7wKL4JU2Z-TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9cb1759-8d24-08c1-102f-e1a96193d6ae@gmail.com>
 <DM5PR19MB4695EC181005F9445CD0FB20F9C60@DM5PR19MB4695.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201215170158.qjqiidilqzwv2c5f@yuggoth.org>
 <CAAovpgCQZLv9mDQCPD25Dy=-9QvE1t63f9u0KYo0shd0X2MOLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201215183225.htu2rsegi5s4mtf6@yuggoth.org>
 <CADr68WZ=iJ4095s9X4RdiAvTmz=SB65kRT5qTp6zvvHa+Uq-bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201216182722.5as2n4trfqqfoqyg@yuggoth.org>
Message-ID: <142bb9b3-c0fe-ed96-8d9d-2dce584a93f5@openstack.org>

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2020-12-16 09:03:28 +0100 (+0100), Dr. Jens Harbott wrote:
>> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>:
>>>
>>> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
>>>> My $0.02 over lunch:  I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
>>>> with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
>>> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
>>> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
>>
>> It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
>> ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
>> list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
>> contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?
> 
> [...] I'm happy to reach out to them and ask whether they're
> interested in having that become an Open Infrastructure Foundation
> general discussion channel or something, but keep in mind that not
> all the people involved in that community are necessarily fans of
> OpenStack or the foundation (even some who were previously
> contributors to OpenStack or to the Project Infrastructure team).

Seems worth a try! We should not assume that they will necessarily say no.

-- 
Thierry