openinfra/interop
Code Issues Proposed changes
7c3be66b7f
interop/doc/source/process/CoreDefinition.rst
Mark T. Voelker d8fb682a2b Change doc references to DefCore 
At the Board of Directors meeting on April 24, 2016 the Board of
Directors indicated that as DefCore has evolved it's focus on
interoperability and it's working structure, it's name may be a source
of some confusion to those outside of the community or who are new to
the community.  The Board made an informal request that the DefCore
Committee consider changing it's name to more clearly reflect it's focus
and structure.

This patch is the first step in that process.  It updates references
in various documents to change the name "DefCore Committee" to
"Interop Working Group" as agreed at the summer 2016 DefCore Committee
Sprint [1].

It should be noted that this patch should be considered a work in
progress to generate discussion until the new name is approved by
the DefCore Committee and the Board of Directors.  Should we elect
to go forward with the new name, some other actions will also need
to be taken, including but not limited to:

1. We will need to consider updating references on the OpenStack wiki.
2. We will need to consider updating the name of our IRC channel,
   mailing list, Launchpad project, and git repository.  Most of these
   changes will need to be carefully coordinated with the OpenStack
   Infrastructure team.
3. We will need to take into account external resources that point to
   DefCore artifacts, such as Foundation-maintained websites (such as:
   http://www.openstack.org/interop ).
4. We will need to coordinate with RefStack to minimize impact.
5. We will need to clearly communicate the name change to the rest of the
   community.

Note also that I've intentionally left many historical documents that
have been superceded (such as the 2015A process docs, Guidelines that
are no longer used, etc) in tact.  There seemed little value in
spending time on them and cluttering the patch with them since they're
now obsolete.

[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreSummer2016Sprint

Change-Id: I79d337c193e75c54d49f1d847468f6347e2ef2b3
2017-01-23 21:25:05 -05:00

8.7 KiB
Raw Blame History

Core Definition

Objective

The following list represents the "guiding principles" used by the Foundation Board to determine how commercial implementations of OpenStack can be granted use of the trademark. They will continue to get refined over the next 6 months as the to-be-renamed-Core-Definition Committee refines the must-pass test selection process and governance. They committee may suggest changes to the by-laws to clarify the definition of core.

Principles Adopted at Oct 4th 2013 Board Meeting

Implementation

  • The Governance/InteropWG is working to manage this.
  • Meetings and agendas will be posted to that page, hosted on Google Hangouts and (generally) open to the community.
  • Meeting participants will be expected to commit to the full set of meetings, be familiar with the Spider process materials, and up-to-date on the committee resolutions to date.
  • Havana must-pass tests approved by Ice House Release Ice House must-pass tests approved by Ice House Release +90

Principles

image

  1. Implementations that are Core can use OpenStack trademark (OpenStack™)
    1. This is the legal definition of "core" and the why it matters to the community.
    2. We want to make sure that the OpenStack™ mark means something.
    3. The OpenStack™ mark is not the same as the OpenStack brand; however, the Board uses it’s control of the mark as a proxy to help manage the brand.
  2. Core is a subset of the whole project
    1. The OpenStack project is supposed to be a broad and diverse community with new projects entering incubation and new implementations being constantly added. This innovation is vital to OpenStack but separate from the definition of Core.
    2. There may be other marks that are managed separately by the foundation, and available for the platform ecosystem as per the Board’s discretion
    3. "OpenStack API Compatible" mark not part of this discussion and should be not be assumed.
  3. Core definition can be applied equally to all usage models
    1. There should not be multiple definitions of OpenStack depending on the operator (public, private, community, etc)
    2. While expected that each deployment is identical, the differences must be quantifiable
  4. Claiming OpenStack requiring use of designated upstream code
    1. Implementation’s claiming the OpenStack™ mark must use the OpenStack upstream code (or be using code submitted to upstream)
    2. You are not OpenStack, if you pass all the tests but do not use the API framework
    3. You are not OpenStack, if you pass all the tests but do not use the API framework
    4. This also surfaces bit-rot in alternate implementations to the larger community
    5. This behavior improves interoperability because there is more shared code between implementation
  5. Projects must have an open reference implementation
    1. OpenStack will require an open source reference base plug-in implementation for projects (if not part of OpenStack, license model for reference plug-in must be compatible).
    2. Definition of a plug-in: alternate backend implementations with a common API framework that uses common _code to implement the API
    3. This expects that projects (where technically feasible) are expected to implement a plug-in or extension architecture.
    4. This is already in place for several projects and addresses around ecosystem support, enabling innovation
    5. Reference plug-ins are, by definition, the complete capability set. It is not acceptable to have "core" features that are not functional in the reference plug-in
    6. This will enable alternate implementations to offer innovative or differentiated features without forcing changes to the reference plug-in implementation
    7. This will enable the reference to expand without forcing other alternate implementations to match all features and recertify
  6. Vendors may substitute alternate implementations
    1. If a vendor plug-in passes all relevant tests then it can be considered a full substitute for the reference plug-in
    2. If a vendor plug-in does NOT pass all relevant test then the vendor is required to include the open source reference in the implementation.
    3. Alternate implementations may pass any tests that make sense
    4. Alternate implementations should add tests to validate new functionality.
    5. They must have all the must-pass tests (see #10) to claim the OpenStack mark.
    6. OpenStack Implementations are verified by open community tests
    7. Vendor OpenStack implementations must achieve 100% of must-have coverage?
    8. Implemented tests can be flagged as may-have requires list [Joshua McKenty]
    9. Certifiers will be required to disclose their testing gaps.
    10. This will put a lot of pressure on the Tempest project
    11. Maintenance of the testing suite to become a core Foundation responsibility. This may require additional resources
    12. Implementations and products are allowed to have variation based on publication of compatibility
    13. Consumers must have a way to determine how the system is different from reference (posted, discovered, etc)
    14. Testing must respond in an appropriate way on BOTH pass and fail (the wrong return rejects the entire suite)
  7. Tests can be remotely or self-administered
    1. Plug-in certification is driven by Tempest self-certification model
    2. Self-certifiers are required to publish their results
    3. Self-certified are required to publish enough information that a 3rd party could build the reference implementation to pass the tests.
    4. Self-certified must include the operating systems that have been certified
    5. It is preferred for self-certified implementation to reference an OpenStack reference architecture "flavor" instead of defining their own reference. (a way to publish and agree on flavors is needed)
    6. The Foundation needs to define a mechanism of dispute resolution. (A trust but verify model)
    7. As an ecosystem partner, you have a need to make a "works against OpenStack" statement that is supportable
    8. API consumer can claim working against the OpenStack API if it works against any implementation passing all the "must have" tests(YES)
    9. API consumers can state they are working against the OpenStack API with some "may have" items as requirements
    10. API consumers are expected to write tests that validate their required behaviors (submitted as "may have" tests)
  8. A subset of tests are chosen by the Foundation as "must-pass"
    1. How? Read the Governance/CoreCriteria Selection Process
    2. An OpenStack body will recommend which tests are elevated from may-have to must-have
    3. The selection of "must-pass" tests should be based on quantifiable information when possible.
    4. Must-pass tests should be selected from the existing body of "may-pass" tests. This encourages people to write tests for cases they want supported.
    5. We will have a process by which tests are elevated from may to must lists
    6. Potentially: the User Committee will nominate tests that elevated to the board
    7. OpenStack Core means passing all "must-pass" tests
  9. The OpenStack board owns the responsibility to define 'core' – to approve 'musts'
    1. The "CoreDef" committee will submit the must-pass tests to the board as a block and passed as a single motion
    2. We are NOT defining which items are on the list in this effort, just making the position that it is how we will define core
    3. May-have tests include items in the integrated release, but which are not core.
    4. Must haves – must comply with the Core criteria defined from the IncUp committee results
    5. Projects in Incubation or pre-Incubation are not to be included in the 'may' list
  10. OpenStack Core means passing all "must-pass" tests
    1. The OpenStack board owns the responsibility to define 'core' – to approve 'musts'
    2. We are NOT defining which items are on the list in this effort, just making the position that it is how we will define core
    3. May-have tests include items in the integrated release, but which are not core.
    4. Must haves – must comply with the Core criteria defined from the IncUp committee results
    5. Projects in Incubation or pre-Incubation are not to be included in the 'may' list