[yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration

Thu Feb 21 18:19:24 PST 2013

Hi Jeff,
You said it! As we discussed in the meeting, we strengthen our guidelines and documentations to make this more clear. 
Thanks and Regards
Sanil.
________________________________________
From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:52 PM
To: Sanil kumar
Cc: Richard Purdie; Philip Balister; Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration

Hi Sanil - you are bringing up some very key points here. I think we
should discuss this in the AB meeting today. I think your
understanding is mostly correct, but pieces of the puzzle are missing.

It is important to remember that YP is an umbrella project, or as Dave
says, a "collaboration space". There is no tool or utility called
Yocto Project. This creates some confusion when new users try to
"download the Yocto Project" and find that they are downloading
something else. We are working on ways to alleviate this confusion,
but in the meantime, Richard has had some inquiries as to whether Poky
was itself Yocto Project Compatible. As it happens, when we set up the
Compliance Program last year, we did not explicitly say that all
components under the umbrella are YP Compatible (and perhaps some of
them do not meet the standard). This vote is to establish officially
that Poky is YP Compatible.

As it happens, Poky has always been a separate project. Poky is our
reference system, but it is not the only possible such system. If we
removed Poky and put something else in its place, Yocto Project would
still be Yocto Project.

You bring up an interesting point about derivative projects. If I use
a YP Compatible BSP to build a product, is that product YP Compatible?
This is for the AB to decide, but I would strongly argue No here.
Compatible status is only granted to things that meet all the
requirements on the application form. This is more than a branding
issue - it has to do with identification and differentiation in the
marketplace.

All this means that we need clearer guidelines for the Compliance
Program. I will take the action to write these and post them on the
website.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Sanil kumar <sanil.kumar at huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> The aspects you considered are correct and I agree, it can avoid some confusions.
> It looks like we say Yocto Project release is Yocto Compatible.
>
> May be I need to revisit and update my understanding!
> According to me:
> Yocto Compatible / Participant are key branding for Yocto Project which tightens our overall project goal.
> By default, all the original components within yocto release are under this guideline. Also to meeting this brand status/guideline for any components from within yocto project becomes automatic for Yocto Project.
> I mean, we dont need to say Yocto Project is YPCompatible or participant(?)
>> This may lead that, any new layer or features that we add for yocto project may also have to go for this status seperately time to time. Do we have a case, where we build a component which is not inline with YP?
> (Ofcourse, if consider poky as a seperate component only used for YP, then, the thought could be different -clearly needs YP registration)
>
> Another point could be: (probably, this we need to consider in AB for branding advantages for customers)
> Say, intel has a bsp layer which is YP compatible. If any product is built with this bsp, those product can use YP compatible logo? (next level customers of Intel)
>> If we consider this point...then....when poky is YP compatible and any product uses it directly can also se the YP branding without any registration need with Yocto Project
>> If , we stop the rights of branding only at the registered company and its direct products, then this issue may not arise.
>
> I am trying to put across some thoughts. May help to strengthen our goal and views for YP.
> Kindly refine my understanding.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Sanil.
> ________________________________________
> From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:11 PM
> To: Sanil kumar
> Cc: Richard Purdie; Philip Balister; Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration
>
> Hi Sanil - I may be misunderstanding your concern. If Poky becomes YP
> Compatible, it seems to me that that would alleviate some of the
> confusion for the circumstances you mention. It is far more confusing
> if Poky is a basic component but not Compatible. Maybe there is some
> aspect I am not seeing?
>
> thanks
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Sanil kumar <sanil.kumar at huawei.com> wrote:
>> I also, feel, if this can avoid confusion, the vote is Yes.
>> At the same time, if we say poky is YP Compatible, will this lead to other confusions; esp under following cases?
>> - Our Yocto 1.3 release was "poky-danny-8.0"
>> - poky is one of the basic components used for Yocto Project
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Sanil.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] on behalf of Richard Purdie [richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:36 AM
>> To: Philip Balister
>> Cc: Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration
>>
>> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:54 -0800, Philip Balister wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2013 07:03 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> > Just to explain this, we treat Poky as the reference code for the
>>> > project which we use for testing. I'm hearing people telling others that
>>> > Poky isn't YP Compatible which is going to lead to confusion.
>>> >
>>> > As our reference/testing code base, Poky should model best practises so
>>> > I think it deserves this status. I just want to make it official, clear
>>> > and head off this issue. I'm hoping this isn't a hard decision for the
>>> > AB :)
>>>
>>> Well, as far as best practices, the blurring of distro and bsp in
>>> meta-yocto is something I would argue against in all other layers,
>>> except meta-yocto :)
>>>
>>> But, OpenEmbedded knows you are trying really hard and votes yes.
>>
>> The distro and bsp components were separated out into two separate
>> layers (meta-yocto and meta-yocto-bsp) quite a while ago so this should
>> be resolved now...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto-ab mailing list
>> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
> Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org

--
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Sanil kumar <sanil.kumar at huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> The aspects you considered are correct and I agree, it can avoid some confusions.
> It looks like we say Yocto Project release is Yocto Compatible.
>
> May be I need to revisit and update my understanding!
> According to me:
> Yocto Compatible / Participant are key branding for Yocto Project which tightens our overall project goal.
> By default, all the original components within yocto release are under this guideline. Also to meeting this brand status/guideline for any components from within yocto project becomes automatic for Yocto Project.
> I mean, we dont need to say Yocto Project is YPCompatible or participant(?)
>> This may lead that, any new layer or features that we add for yocto project may also have to go for this status seperately time to time. Do we have a case, where we build a component which is not inline with YP?
> (Ofcourse, if consider poky as a seperate component only used for YP, then, the thought could be different -clearly needs YP registration)
>
> Another point could be: (probably, this we need to consider in AB for branding advantages for customers)
> Say, intel has a bsp layer which is YP compatible. If any product is built with this bsp, those product can use YP compatible logo? (next level customers of Intel)
>> If we consider this point...then....when poky is YP compatible and any product uses it directly can also se the YP branding without any registration need with Yocto Project
>> If , we stop the rights of branding only at the registered company and its direct products, then this issue may not arise.
>
> I am trying to put across some thoughts. May help to strengthen our goal and views for YP.
> Kindly refine my understanding.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Sanil.
> ________________________________________
> From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:11 PM
> To: Sanil kumar
> Cc: Richard Purdie; Philip Balister; Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration
>
> Hi Sanil - I may be misunderstanding your concern. If Poky becomes YP
> Compatible, it seems to me that that would alleviate some of the
> confusion for the circumstances you mention. It is far more confusing
> if Poky is a basic component but not Compatible. Maybe there is some
> aspect I am not seeing?
>
> thanks
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Sanil kumar <sanil.kumar at huawei.com> wrote:
>> I also, feel, if this can avoid confusion, the vote is Yes.
>> At the same time, if we say poky is YP Compatible, will this lead to other confusions; esp under following cases?
>> - Our Yocto 1.3 release was "poky-danny-8.0"
>> - poky is one of the basic components used for Yocto Project
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Sanil.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] on behalf of Richard Purdie [richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:36 AM
>> To: Philip Balister
>> Cc: Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration
>>
>> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:54 -0800, Philip Balister wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2013 07:03 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> > Just to explain this, we treat Poky as the reference code for the
>>> > project which we use for testing. I'm hearing people telling others that
>>> > Poky isn't YP Compatible which is going to lead to confusion.
>>> >
>>> > As our reference/testing code base, Poky should model best practises so
>>> > I think it deserves this status. I just want to make it official, clear
>>> > and head off this issue. I'm hoping this isn't a hard decision for the
>>> > AB :)
>>>
>>> Well, as far as best practices, the blurring of distro and bsp in
>>> meta-yocto is something I would argue against in all other layers,
>>> except meta-yocto :)
>>>
>>> But, OpenEmbedded knows you are trying really hard and votes yes.
>>
>> The distro and bsp components were separated out into two separate
>> layers (meta-yocto and meta-yocto-bsp) quite a while ago so this should
>> be resolved now...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto-ab mailing list
>> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
> Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org

--
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Sanil kumar <sanil.kumar at huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> The aspects you considered are correct and I agree, it can avoid some confusions.
> It looks like we say Yocto Project release is Yocto Compatible.
>
> May be I need to revisit and update my understanding!
> According to me:
> Yocto Compatible / Participant are key branding for Yocto Project which tightens our overall project goal.
> By default, all the original components within yocto release are under this guideline. Also to meeting this brand status/guideline for any components from within yocto project becomes automatic for Yocto Project.
> I mean, we dont need to say Yocto Project is YPCompatible or participant(?)
>> This may lead that, any new layer or features that we add for yocto project may also have to go for this status seperately time to time. Do we have a case, where we build a component which is not inline with YP?
> (Ofcourse, if consider poky as a seperate component only used for YP, then, the thought could be different -clearly needs YP registration)
>
> Another point could be: (probably, this we need to consider in AB for branding advantages for customers)
> Say, intel has a bsp layer which is YP compatible. If any product is built with this bsp, those product can use YP compatible logo? (next level customers of Intel)
>> If we consider this point...then....when poky is YP compatible and any product uses it directly can also se the YP branding without any registration need with Yocto Project
>> If , we stop the rights of branding only at the registered company and its direct products, then this issue may not arise.
>
> I am trying to put across some thoughts. May help to strengthen our goal and views for YP.
> Kindly refine my understanding.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Sanil.
> ________________________________________
> From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:11 PM
> To: Sanil kumar
> Cc: Richard Purdie; Philip Balister; Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration
>
> Hi Sanil - I may be misunderstanding your concern. If Poky becomes YP
> Compatible, it seems to me that that would alleviate some of the
> confusion for the circumstances you mention. It is far more confusing
> if Poky is a basic component but not Compatible. Maybe there is some
> aspect I am not seeing?
>
> thanks
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Sanil kumar <sanil.kumar at huawei.com> wrote:
>> I also, feel, if this can avoid confusion, the vote is Yes.
>> At the same time, if we say poky is YP Compatible, will this lead to other confusions; esp under following cases?
>> - Our Yocto 1.3 release was "poky-danny-8.0"
>> - poky is one of the basic components used for Yocto Project
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Sanil.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] on behalf of Richard Purdie [richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:36 AM
>> To: Philip Balister
>> Cc: Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration
>>
>> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:54 -0800, Philip Balister wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2013 07:03 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> > Just to explain this, we treat Poky as the reference code for the
>>> > project which we use for testing. I'm hearing people telling others that
>>> > Poky isn't YP Compatible which is going to lead to confusion.
>>> >
>>> > As our reference/testing code base, Poky should model best practises so
>>> > I think it deserves this status. I just want to make it official, clear
>>> > and head off this issue. I'm hoping this isn't a hard decision for the
>>> > AB :)
>>>
>>> Well, as far as best practices, the blurring of distro and bsp in
>>> meta-yocto is something I would argue against in all other layers,
>>> except meta-yocto :)
>>>
>>> But, OpenEmbedded knows you are trying really hard and votes yes.
>>
>> The distro and bsp components were separated out into two separate
>> layers (meta-yocto and meta-yocto-bsp) quite a while ago so this should
>> be resolved now...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto-ab mailing list
>> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
> Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org

--
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org