Reconciling names

Matt Wagner matt.wagner at redhat.com
Wed Oct 24 14:43:53 UTC 2012


On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:29:18PM +0100, Angus Thomas wrote:
<snip>
> I'm approaching this from the perspective of a member of the Aeolus
> community. Because of my job, though, I'm in a position to talk
> directly to product managers etc. associated with Cloud Engine, and
> to move to an agreement. To that end, Hugh and I have already met
> with the Cloud Engine product managers, persuaded them, if it was
> necessary, that the disadvantages of the current situation are such
> that we should all seek to resolve it, and established what their
> position is on each of the current set of terms.

Thanks for doing this! As you say, the current situation is quite
frustrating.

> Component Outline – This name is preferred, primarily because of
> familiarity to existing users of Cloud Engine.

I still find "Image Template" much clearer. I was going to say that the
situation would be much clearer if we took to calling Images
"Components" as others have proposed. But why would we rename something
clear ("Image") to something ambiguous ("Component")?

If PM agrees with our use of "Image", might they be amenable to using
"Image Outline"? (I don't love that name, honestly.)

> Assembly – This is an instance of Cloud Engine proposing to change to
> come back in line with Aeolus

Interestingly, this is one of the few cases where I thought their name
("Component Blueprint") was clearer than ours, at least the "Blueprint"
part. But I'm happy to converge on something!

> AppForm Blueprint and AppForm – Cloud Engine is committed to
> "AppForm". It is intended to be a distinctive term which encapsulates
> the specific thing that Cloud Engine/Aeolus provides. It differs from
> a “Cloudformations stack”, for example, by virtue of its
> cross-provider capabilities. There's enough unique value here to
> justify a distinctive name, which can be used in promotional work.
> “Deployable” is a generic term which doesn't do justice to the
> capabilities of our application.
> 
> In short, Cloud Engine is going to use the term AppForm. The question
> is whether the Aeolus community can adopt it too, in order to achieve
> convergence.

Are we allowed to use this name upstream, or is it in some way
trademarked?

I'm torn here. We call this a Deployment, which is bad because it's
easily confused with "Deployable". And I really want for us to converge
on one set of names. But I also really, really dislike "AppForm" as a
name. But lacking anything better, maybe, just maybe, we should just run
with this.

> Cloud – “Environment” is difficult because that term already has a
> specific meaning in Katello, which is different to the way that we're
> currently using it. A Katello environment is essentially a set of
> repositories of content. That doesn't map directly onto what we're
> calling environments and, given the fact that Katello and Aeolus are
> complimentary applications, we should avoid a concept/name collision.
> 
> From the point of view of users, Aeolus makes cloud resources
> available. This is an encapsulation of those resources, hence Cloud.
> 
> Also, this is the term, they tell me, which is employed by other
> widely used cloud infrastructure management applications, so it is
> the term that a lot of potential users understand. Using it will make
> adoption simpler.

I want to be careful here, because I don't really know how our
real-world users think, and my thinking may be very different than
theirs.

We have to change _something_, because we call this an Environment, the
code still calls it a Pool Family, and downstream calls it a Cloud.

My problem with "Cloud" is... Well, actually, I have several.

One is that "cloud" is already overloaded and over-hyped. It's like
calling things "green" -- it's gotten to the point where it really has
no meaning. MS Office markets itself as being part of the cloud, for
example. I have no clue what that even means. So we're adding this
overused, ambiguous buzzword and expecting people take us seriously.

Another problem is that, within a narrower niche of tech-savvy
sysadmins, "cloud" _does_ have a clearer meaning. It's cloud providers,
like EC2 or Rackspace, or internal private "clouds". But that's now how
we are using it, _even though we have that concept in our app_. We are
instead using it to refer to a smaller grouping of things. So in
CloudForms Cloud Engine, you can have Clouds that don't map up to the
clouds you are using. How does that even make sense?

So we are hijacking an overused term, and not even using it in its
sometimes-understood meaning. Personally, as a technical person, I would
have a hard time taking seriously a product that misused the word
"cloud" -- particularly one that was actually supposed to manage cloud
resources.

As for the fact that everyone else abuses the word "cloud" -- as my
mother used to say: if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

> Resource Zone – This is the first of several instances where the
> Cloud Engine product managers are proposing to drop the (over)use of
> Cloud as a prefix.

Pool == Resource Zone. This can work for me.

> Frontend Realm/<Your name here> - This is open to good ideas. The
> problems with “Frontend Realm” are that it doesn't help the user
> understand purpose and, specifically, it doesn't make clear that this
> is a collection of Provider Realms.

My understanding is that this was previously called a Cloud Resource
Cluster in product?

I think the real problem, IMHO, is that a realm is something hard to
understand or explain. So neither "Frontend Realm" nor "Cloud Resource
Cluster" is something intuitive.

> Resource Provider – Note the proposal to remove “Cloud” as a prefix

Ironically, this is the one place we _shouldn't_ remove the "Cloud"
label, IMHO. It's probably clear enough what a "Provider" is in the
context of our app, but "Cloud Provider" seems unambiguous and
widely-understood.

> Hardware Profile - Cloud Engine is proposing to change to come back
> in line with Aeolus

This one is good news! This one is consistent with what Deltacloud uses,
and HWP is an easy-to-understand name IMHO.

> Provider Realm - Cloud Engine is proposing to change to come back in
> line with Aeolus

I'm honestly not sure what name they used here previously, but I think
this is good news.

> p.s. I was tempted to title this mail "You say tomato..", but thought
> better of it, since it didn't really strike the right tone. If you've
> made it this far, though, you could probably do with some (mild)
> amusement.

Heh, some humor definitely helps! :)

-- Matt



More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list