[OpenStack Foundation] [Foundation Board] [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?

Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com
Mon Nov 30 16:30:03 UTC 2020


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


More information about the Foundation mailing list