Mailing List Archive: [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability?

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

Nov 29, 2020, 6:50 PM

Post #1 of 7 (874 views)

Greetings everyone!

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.

I think this is a good time to revisit these topics because of the
conversion from the OpenStack Foundation to the Open Infrastructure
Foundation. The further broadening of the larger community represents
both an opportunity and a checkpoint in which we should likely ask
ourselves some questions to help guide our future path.

I think what has made some of these discussions difficult in the past
is because we intertwined the topics. To meet the perceived needs of
the past, we ended up building and encoding specific models and
concepts when the only project was OpenStack. We were trying to foster
and develop an expansive ecosystem at that time. Then, it likely
seemed logical to encode this as part of the bylaws.

Except those processes have left us with something that is difficult
to amend, change, or adapt moving forward. And even that seems like a
daunting issue in itself, before we consider that non-openstack
projects have different needs. This does not mean we can not nor
should not ask ourselves what is important. We must identify where we
want to see things in the future for such programs. If we don’t
identify these things, then we can not measure future success nor
possibly identify new needs. Besides, who else is better suited to
lead projects to become more agile and responsive to emergent needs if
not the board itself?

So with those thoughts in mind, I would like for us to all mentally
take a step back and try to answer some basic questions to help frame
future discussion.

* Where do we see the value in the trademark and associated branding?
What is important? What is less important?
* How do we see branding and trademarks evolving now that the
foundation scope has expanded?
* What is the desired end goal of trademark and branding programs? Are
there multiple specific end goals?

And then there is the topic of interoperability. Looking forward it
seems like there is more than one level of interoperability that needs
to be thought of and cared about.

* At what level should we, the board, encourage
cross-community/cross-project/product/service interoperability?
* What is the end goal of interoperability in our evolved scope?
* Is the board the right level at which to have the discussions and
ultimately the technical management of the fine details regarding
interoperability?

I’m posing the last question for a very important reason. Our scope
has widened. We have zoomed out. The bigger picture is our focus as
the board. The lower level details of any project’s interoperability
do require fine details and specific context. To unfortunately use
another photography analogy, the repeated zoom in and zoom out does
not help us keep our focus on the bigger picture. As a board, we need
to track the picture consistently and constantly, which is the only
way we can best frame our discussions and resulting outcomes.

I hope this email brings about discussion on these topics. Not
necessarily a discussion of how or what, but more of a discussion of
means to unlock and enable.

Thanks,

-Julia

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

Re: [board][interop] Is it time to revisit: Trademarks, Branding, and Interoperability? [ In reply to ]

thierry at openstack

Nov 30, 2020, 1:51 AM

Post #2 of 7 (874 views)

Permalink

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

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

Arkady.Kanevsky at dell

Nov 30, 2020, 8:30 AM

Post #3 of 7 (874 views)

Permalink

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@openstack.org>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM
To: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@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@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

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

amy at demarco

Dec 1, 2020, 11:36 AM

Post #4 of 7 (873 views)

Permalink

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@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@openstack.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM
> To: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@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@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>

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

juliaashleykreger at gmail

Dec 4, 2020, 1:07 PM

Post #5 of 7 (868 views)

Permalink

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@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@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@openstack.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM
>> To: foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@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@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

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

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

Arkady.Kanevsky at dell

Dec 4, 2020, 1:40 PM

Post #6 of 7 (868 views)

Permalink

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@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 3:07 PM
To: Amy Marrich
Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; Thierry Carrez; foundation@lists.openstack.org; foundation-board@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@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@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@openstack.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 AM
>> To: foundation@lists.openstack.org;
>> foundation-board@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@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation-board mailing list
>> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

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

kurt at garloff

Dec 6, 2020, 10:13 AM

Post #7 of 7 (867 views)

Permalink

Hi Arkady, Thierry, Julia,

On 30 November 2020 17:30:03 CET, "Kanevsky, Arkady" <Arkady.Kanevsky@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@garloff.de>, Cologne, Germany
(Sent from Mobile with K9.)

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