Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 01/29/2015 11:56 AM, Adam Lawson wrote: > Hi Anne; this was more or less directed in Monty's direction and/or those > in agreement with his position. Sorry for the confusion, I probably should > have been a bit more clear. ; ) > > Mahalo, > Adam Okay, thanks Adam. My name is Anita. Thanks, Anita. > > > *Adam Lawson* > > AQORN, Inc. > 427 North Tatnall Street > Ste. 58461 > Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 > Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 > International: +1 302-387-4660 > Direct: +1 916-246-2072 > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > >> On 01/28/2015 07:24 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: >>> I'm short on time so I apologize for my candor since I need to get >> straight >>> to the point. >>> >>> I love reading the various opinions and my team is immensely excited with >>> OpenStack is maturing. But this is lunacy. >>> >>> I looked at the patch being worked [1] to change how things are done and >>> have more questions than I can count. >>> >>> So I'll start with the obvious ones: >>> >>>- Are you proposing this change as a Foundation Individual Board >>>Director tasked with representing the interests of all Individual >> Members >>>of the OpenStack community or as a member of the TC? Context matters >>>because your two hats are presenting a conflict of interest in my >> opinion. >>>One cannot propose a change that gives them greater influence while >>>suggesting they're doing it for everyone's benefit. >> How can Jim be proposing a change as a Foundation Individual Board >> Director? He isn't a member of the Board. >> >> http://www.openstack.org/foundation/board-of-directors/ >> >> He is a member of the Technical Committee. >> >> http://www.openstack.org/foundation/tech-committee/ >> >> Keep in mind that the repository that he offered the change to, the >> openstack/governance repository, welcomes patches from anyone who takes >> the time to learn our developer workflow and offers a patch to the >> repository using Gerrit. >> >> http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html >> >> Thanks, >> Anita. >>>- How is "fun" remotely relevant when discussing process improvement? >>>I'm really hoping we aren't developing processes based on how fun a >> process >>>is or isn't. >>>- Why is this discussion being limited to the development community >>>only? Where's the openness in that? >>>- What exactly is the problem we're attempting to fix? >>>- Does the current process not work? >>>- Is there group of individuals being disenfranchised with our current >>>process somehow that suggests the process should limit participation >>>differently? >>> >>> And some questions around the participation proposals: >>> >>>- Why is the election process change proposing to limit participation >> to >>>ATC members only? >>>There are numerous enthusiasts within our community that don't fall >>>within the ATC category such as marketing (as some have brought up), >>>corporate sponsors (where I live) and I'm sure there are many more. >>>- Is taking back the process a hint that the current process is being >>>mishandled or restores a sense of process control? >>>- Is the presumption that the election process belongs to someone or >>>some group? >>>That strikes me as an incredibly subjective assertion to make. >>> >>> This is one reason I feel so strongly folks should not be >> allowed >>> to hold more than one position of leadership within the OpenStack >> project. >>> Obfuscated context coupled with increased influence rarely produces >>> excellence on either front. But that's me. >>> >>> Mahalo, >>> Adam >>> >>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/ >>> >>> >>> *Adam Lawson* >>> >>> AQORN, Inc. >>> 427 North Tatnall Street >>> Ste. 58461 >>> Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 >>> Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 >>> International: +1 302-387-4660 >>> Direct: +1 916-246-2072 >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Anita Kuno >> wrote: >>> On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Monty Taylor wrote: >> What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: >> >> - Anyone can propose a name >> - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria >> - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of >> effort > > Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. > For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because > there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to > be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship. > >> - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names >> they find image-wise problematic >> - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members >> containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues cle
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
Hi Anne; this was more or less directed in Monty's direction and/or those in agreement with his position. Sorry for the confusion, I probably should have been a bit more clear. ; ) Mahalo, Adam *Adam Lawson* AQORN, Inc. 427 North Tatnall Street Ste. 58461 Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 International: +1 302-387-4660 Direct: +1 916-246-2072 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 01/28/2015 07:24 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: > > I'm short on time so I apologize for my candor since I need to get > straight > > to the point. > > > > I love reading the various opinions and my team is immensely excited with > > OpenStack is maturing. But this is lunacy. > > > > I looked at the patch being worked [1] to change how things are done and > > have more questions than I can count. > > > > So I'll start with the obvious ones: > > > >- Are you proposing this change as a Foundation Individual Board > >Director tasked with representing the interests of all Individual > Members > >of the OpenStack community or as a member of the TC? Context matters > >because your two hats are presenting a conflict of interest in my > opinion. > >One cannot propose a change that gives them greater influence while > >suggesting they're doing it for everyone's benefit. > How can Jim be proposing a change as a Foundation Individual Board > Director? He isn't a member of the Board. > > http://www.openstack.org/foundation/board-of-directors/ > > He is a member of the Technical Committee. > > http://www.openstack.org/foundation/tech-committee/ > > Keep in mind that the repository that he offered the change to, the > openstack/governance repository, welcomes patches from anyone who takes > the time to learn our developer workflow and offers a patch to the > repository using Gerrit. > > http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html > > Thanks, > Anita. > >- How is "fun" remotely relevant when discussing process improvement? > >I'm really hoping we aren't developing processes based on how fun a > process > >is or isn't. > >- Why is this discussion being limited to the development community > >only? Where's the openness in that? > >- What exactly is the problem we're attempting to fix? > >- Does the current process not work? > >- Is there group of individuals being disenfranchised with our current > >process somehow that suggests the process should limit participation > >differently? > > > > And some questions around the participation proposals: > > > >- Why is the election process change proposing to limit participation > to > >ATC members only? > >There are numerous enthusiasts within our community that don't fall > >within the ATC category such as marketing (as some have brought up), > >corporate sponsors (where I live) and I'm sure there are many more. > >- Is taking back the process a hint that the current process is being > >mishandled or restores a sense of process control? > >- Is the presumption that the election process belongs to someone or > >some group? > >That strikes me as an incredibly subjective assertion to make. > > > > This is one reason I feel so strongly folks should not be > allowed > > to hold more than one position of leadership within the OpenStack > project. > > Obfuscated context coupled with increased influence rarely produces > > excellence on either front. But that's me. > > > > Mahalo, > > Adam > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/ > > > > > > *Adam Lawson* > > > > AQORN, Inc. > > 427 North Tatnall Street > > Ste. 58461 > > Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 > > Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 > > International: +1 302-387-4660 > > Direct: +1 916-246-2072 > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Anita Kuno > wrote: > > > >> On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >>> Monty Taylor wrote: > What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: > > - Anyone can propose a name > - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria > - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of > effort > >>> > >>> Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. > >>> For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because > >>> there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to > >>> be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. > >> Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship. > >>> > - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names > they find image-wise problematic > - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members > containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly > labeled, like this: > > * Love > * Lumber > >> Ohh, it gives me a thrill to see a name that means something even > >> remotely Canadian. (no
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 01/28/2015 07:24 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: > I'm short on time so I apologize for my candor since I need to get straight > to the point. > > I love reading the various opinions and my team is immensely excited with > OpenStack is maturing. But this is lunacy. > > I looked at the patch being worked [1] to change how things are done and > have more questions than I can count. > > So I'll start with the obvious ones: > >- Are you proposing this change as a Foundation Individual Board >Director tasked with representing the interests of all Individual Members >of the OpenStack community or as a member of the TC? Context matters >because your two hats are presenting a conflict of interest in my opinion. >One cannot propose a change that gives them greater influence while >suggesting they're doing it for everyone's benefit. How can Jim be proposing a change as a Foundation Individual Board Director? He isn't a member of the Board. http://www.openstack.org/foundation/board-of-directors/ He is a member of the Technical Committee. http://www.openstack.org/foundation/tech-committee/ Keep in mind that the repository that he offered the change to, the openstack/governance repository, welcomes patches from anyone who takes the time to learn our developer workflow and offers a patch to the repository using Gerrit. http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html Thanks, Anita. >- How is "fun" remotely relevant when discussing process improvement? >I'm really hoping we aren't developing processes based on how fun a process >is or isn't. >- Why is this discussion being limited to the development community >only? Where's the openness in that? >- What exactly is the problem we're attempting to fix? >- Does the current process not work? >- Is there group of individuals being disenfranchised with our current >process somehow that suggests the process should limit participation >differently? > > And some questions around the participation proposals: > >- Why is the election process change proposing to limit participation to >ATC members only? >There are numerous enthusiasts within our community that don't fall >within the ATC category such as marketing (as some have brought up), >corporate sponsors (where I live) and I'm sure there are many more. >- Is taking back the process a hint that the current process is being >mishandled or restores a sense of process control? >- Is the presumption that the election process belongs to someone or >some group? >That strikes me as an incredibly subjective assertion to make. > > This is one reason I feel so strongly folks should not be allowed > to hold more than one position of leadership within the OpenStack project. > Obfuscated context coupled with increased influence rarely produces > excellence on either front. But that's me. > > Mahalo, > Adam > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/ > > > *Adam Lawson* > > AQORN, Inc. > 427 North Tatnall Street > Ste. 58461 > Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 > Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 > International: +1 302-387-4660 > Direct: +1 916-246-2072 > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > >> On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> Monty Taylor wrote: What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: - Anyone can propose a name - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort >>> >>> Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. >>> For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because >>> there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to >>> be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. >> Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship. >>> - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names they find image-wise problematic - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly labeled, like this: * Love * Lumber >> Ohh, it gives me a thrill to see a name that means something even >> remotely Canadian. (not advocating it be added to this round) * Lettuce * Lemming - marketing issues identified - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in order until a legally acceptable winner is found This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
I'm short on time so I apologize for my candor since I need to get straight to the point. I love reading the various opinions and my team is immensely excited with OpenStack is maturing. But this is lunacy. I looked at the patch being worked [1] to change how things are done and have more questions than I can count. So I'll start with the obvious ones: - Are you proposing this change as a Foundation Individual Board Director tasked with representing the interests of all Individual Members of the OpenStack community or as a member of the TC? Context matters because your two hats are presenting a conflict of interest in my opinion. One cannot propose a change that gives them greater influence while suggesting they're doing it for everyone's benefit. - How is "fun" remotely relevant when discussing process improvement? I'm really hoping we aren't developing processes based on how fun a process is or isn't. - Why is this discussion being limited to the development community only? Where's the openness in that? - What exactly is the problem we're attempting to fix? - Does the current process not work? - Is there group of individuals being disenfranchised with our current process somehow that suggests the process should limit participation differently? And some questions around the participation proposals: - Why is the election process change proposing to limit participation to ATC members only? There are numerous enthusiasts within our community that don't fall within the ATC category such as marketing (as some have brought up), corporate sponsors (where I live) and I'm sure there are many more. - Is taking back the process a hint that the current process is being mishandled or restores a sense of process control? - Is the presumption that the election process belongs to someone or some group? That strikes me as an incredibly subjective assertion to make. This is one reason I feel so strongly folks should not be allowed to hold more than one position of leadership within the OpenStack project. Obfuscated context coupled with increased influence rarely produces excellence on either front. But that's me. Mahalo, Adam [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/ *Adam Lawson* AQORN, Inc. 427 North Tatnall Street Ste. 58461 Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 International: +1 302-387-4660 Direct: +1 916-246-2072 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Monty Taylor wrote: > >> What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: > >> > >> - Anyone can propose a name > >> - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria > >> - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort > > > > Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. > > For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because > > there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to > > be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. > Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship. > > > >> - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names > >> they find image-wise problematic > >> - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members > >> containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly > >> labeled, like this: > >> > >> * Love > >> * Lumber > Ohh, it gives me a thrill to see a name that means something even > remotely Canadian. (not advocating it be added to this round) > >> * Lettuce > >> * Lemming - marketing issues identified > >> > >> - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in > >> order until a legally acceptable winner is found > >> > >> This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as > >> transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed > >> for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. > >> > >> I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a > >> launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote > >> trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off > >> of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection) > > > > It's been some time since we last used a Launchpad poll. I recently used > > an open surveymonkey poll, which allowed crude ranking. Agree that > > Condorcet is better, as long as you can determine a clear list of voters. > > > > Glad we are talking about this, > Anita. > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __ OpenStack Develo
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Monty Taylor wrote: >> What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: >> >> - Anyone can propose a name >> - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria >> - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort > > Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. > For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because > there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to > be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship. > >> - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names >> they find image-wise problematic >> - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members >> containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly >> labeled, like this: >> >> * Love >> * Lumber Ohh, it gives me a thrill to see a name that means something even remotely Canadian. (not advocating it be added to this round) >> * Lettuce >> * Lemming - marketing issues identified >> >> - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in >> order until a legally acceptable winner is found >> >> This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as >> transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed >> for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. >> >> I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a >> launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote >> trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off >> of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection) > > It's been some time since we last used a Launchpad poll. I recently used > an open surveymonkey poll, which allowed crude ranking. Agree that > Condorcet is better, as long as you can determine a clear list of voters. > Glad we are talking about this, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
Thierry Carrez wrote: > James E. Blair wrote: >> Considering that the process used to be >> a poll of the ~openstack group on launchpad, it seemed like a fairly >> straightforward mapping to ATCs. I wanted to find the easiest way to >> get the most people in the community likely to vote as possible without >> needing to generate a new voting roll. But you are correct: if we're >> fixing this, let's fix it right. > > Actually, since Launchpad ~openstack group usage was discontinued, I > used an open surveymonkey poll for the last two picks. That meant > *anyone* (who knew about the poll) could vote. > >> The next best thing I can think of is to use the entire Foundation >> Individual Membership to produce the roll for the CIVS poll. It will be >> a bit of extra work, but I believe that is about as broad of a >> definition of our community that we use. > > I didn't use CIVS in the past because it doesn't support such a large > number of voters. Reading their site again they seem to have raised the hard limit (which was around 4K IIRC). So we can probably use that (entering voters 1000 at a time). -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
Monty Taylor wrote: > What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: > > - Anyone can propose a name > - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria > - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. > - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names > they find image-wise problematic > - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members > containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly > labeled, like this: > > * Love > * Lumber > * Lettuce > * Lemming - marketing issues identified > > - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in > order until a legally acceptable winner is found > > This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as > transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed > for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. > > I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a > launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote > trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off > of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection) It's been some time since we last used a Launchpad poll. I recently used an open surveymonkey poll, which allowed crude ranking. Agree that Condorcet is better, as long as you can determine a clear list of voters. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
James E. Blair wrote: > Considering that the process used to be > a poll of the ~openstack group on launchpad, it seemed like a fairly > straightforward mapping to ATCs. I wanted to find the easiest way to > get the most people in the community likely to vote as possible without > needing to generate a new voting roll. But you are correct: if we're > fixing this, let's fix it right. Actually, since Launchpad ~openstack group usage was discontinued, I used an open surveymonkey poll for the last two picks. That meant *anyone* (who knew about the poll) could vote. > The next best thing I can think of is to use the entire Foundation > Individual Membership to produce the roll for the CIVS poll. It will be > a bit of extra work, but I believe that is about as broad of a > definition of our community that we use. I didn't use CIVS in the past because it doesn't support such a large number of voters. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 2015-01-28 23:37:18 +0800 (+0800), Tom Fifield wrote: > If logistics are getting complicated, is it necessary to lock it > down so much? I vaguely recall a launchpad poll in the past, which > was effectively open to the public? Is voting on the shortlisted > names something we should just open wide up so that we're > including absolutely everyone in the fun? If the proposal is Condorcet, then I don't think Launchpad polls are going to suffice? -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
I just want to toss in a quick 2 cents on the topic. It is important for everyone to feel involved in the naming of our releases. It is part of who we are. No one (including marketing) should be excluded from the discussion. I see a lot of good feedback here and it should be fun again! Making it a marketing exercise or a technical exercise or anything else is “not fun”. However we change this, it should be inclusive. If there is clearly a bad choice (Hey, I like lemmings! I’m with Jim on this one, not that I’d say we need to call the release “lemming”), it’s fine to exclude it from the list with a reason. I strongly believe that some other well-known projects that use named-releases have dodged this by using 2-words - of which everyone usually only uses the first to speak about it. The spirit of this conversation should be exactly what it is at face value (and how I viewed it): Make naming the release fun for the community (including ATCs, Corporate sponsors [yes they often have fun too!], Marketing folks, etc). —Morgan > On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > On 01/28/2015 01:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Monty Taylor wrote: >>> You'll notice that I did say in my suggestion that ANYONE should be able >>> to propose a name - I believe that would include non-dev people. Since >>> the people in question are marketing people, I would imagine that if any >>> of them feel strongly about a name, that it should be trivial for them >>> to make their case in a persuasive way. >> >> The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4) >> currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider >> "community" was included in previous iterations of the naming process, >> so this very much feels like a TC power grab. >> >>> I'm not willing to cede that choosing the name is by definition a >>> marketing activity - and in fact the sense that such a position was >>> developing is precisely why I think it's time to get this sorted. I >>> think the dev community feels quite a bit of ownership on this topic and >>> I would like to keep it that way. >> >> It's not by definition a technical activity either, so we are walking a >> thin line. Like I commented on the review: I think the TC can retain >> ownership of this process and keep the last bits of fun that were still >> in it[1], as long as we find a way to keep non-ATCs in the naming >> process, and take into account the problematic names raised by the >> marketing community team (which will use those names as much as the >> technical community does). > > Agree. I actually don't think it's strictly important for the TC to > "own" this as much as I don't want the technical folks excluded. What > if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: > > - Anyone can propose a name > - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria > - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort > - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names > they find image-wise problematic > - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members > containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly > labeled, like this: > > * Love > * Lumber > * Lettuce > * Lemming - marketing issues identified > > - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in > order until a legally acceptable winner is found > > This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as > transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed > for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. > > I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a > launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote > trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off > of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection) > > That said - having a script that the foundation staff can use to > generate a condorcet vote from the foundation membership rolls seems > like a generally useful thing to have. Since I'm causing trouble, I'd be > happy to help write it. > >> [1] FWIW, it's been a long time since I last considered the naming >> process as "fun". It's not been fun for me at all to handle this process >> recently and take hits from all sides (I receive more hatemail about >> this process than you would think). As we formalize and clarify this >> process, I would be glad to transfer the naming process to some >> TC-nominated election official. I consider all this "taking back the >> naming process" effort as a personal reflection on my inability to >> preserve the neutrality of the process. It used to be fun, yes, when I >> would throw random names on a whiteboard and get the room to pick. It no >> longer is. > > I think that in and of itself is a good reason to have a better process. > Anything we do can get contentious - and anything we do that adds to > stress or strain on yo
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 01/28/2015 01:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Monty Taylor wrote: >> You'll notice that I did say in my suggestion that ANYONE should be able >> to propose a name - I believe that would include non-dev people. Since >> the people in question are marketing people, I would imagine that if any >> of them feel strongly about a name, that it should be trivial for them >> to make their case in a persuasive way. > > The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4) > currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider > "community" was included in previous iterations of the naming process, > so this very much feels like a TC power grab. > >> I'm not willing to cede that choosing the name is by definition a >> marketing activity - and in fact the sense that such a position was >> developing is precisely why I think it's time to get this sorted. I >> think the dev community feels quite a bit of ownership on this topic and >> I would like to keep it that way. > > It's not by definition a technical activity either, so we are walking a > thin line. Like I commented on the review: I think the TC can retain > ownership of this process and keep the last bits of fun that were still > in it[1], as long as we find a way to keep non-ATCs in the naming > process, and take into account the problematic names raised by the > marketing community team (which will use those names as much as the > technical community does). Agree. I actually don't think it's strictly important for the TC to "own" this as much as I don't want the technical folks excluded. What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: - Anyone can propose a name - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names they find image-wise problematic - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly labeled, like this: * Love * Lumber * Lettuce * Lemming - marketing issues identified - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in order until a legally acceptable winner is found This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection) That said - having a script that the foundation staff can use to generate a condorcet vote from the foundation membership rolls seems like a generally useful thing to have. Since I'm causing trouble, I'd be happy to help write it. > [1] FWIW, it's been a long time since I last considered the naming > process as "fun". It's not been fun for me at all to handle this process > recently and take hits from all sides (I receive more hatemail about > this process than you would think). As we formalize and clarify this > process, I would be glad to transfer the naming process to some > TC-nominated election official. I consider all this "taking back the > naming process" effort as a personal reflection on my inability to > preserve the neutrality of the process. It used to be fun, yes, when I > would throw random names on a whiteboard and get the room to pick. It no > longer is. I think that in and of itself is a good reason to have a better process. Anything we do can get contentious - and anything we do that adds to stress or strain on you should be replaced by something that does not add stress or strain. One of the nice things about a fully mechanical voting process is that there is nobody that should receive hate-mail. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Fifield [mailto:t...@openstack.org] > Sent: 28 January 2015 16:37 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process > > On 28/01/15 23:27, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2015-01-28 10:29:38 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4) > >> currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider > >> "community" was included in previous iterations of the naming > >> process, so this very much feels like a TC power grab. > > [...] > > > > The only reason I'm in favor of that simplification is logistics. If > > representatives of our developer community are expected to run this > > poll on our own then ATCs are an electorate we're able to produce for > > that purpose. If it's going to be a vote across all OpenStack > > Foundation individual members instead, then that election will need to > > be run by (or at least in close cooperation with) the same people who > > currently manage the board elections. > > If logistics are getting complicated, is it necessary to lock it down so > much? I > vaguely recall a launchpad poll in the past, which was effectively open to the > public? Is voting on the shortlisted names something we should just open wide > up so that we're including absolutely everyone in the fun? > I also seem to remember voting in the past as a non-ATC and even campaigned for Juno above Jekyll (for branding reasons). We use the code names heavily in our end user communication (to explain what upgrades we are applying, where we are with the feature set installed compared to the release notes on the 'net) and it would be negative if the brand name was something I felt uncomfortable using in a communication to one of my end users (who come from over 100 different countries). In a multi-cultural and diverse community, it can be difficult to find the right level of humour. Tim > > Tom > > > _ > _ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
Thierry Carrez writes: > Monty Taylor wrote: >> You'll notice that I did say in my suggestion that ANYONE should be able >> to propose a name - I believe that would include non-dev people. Since >> the people in question are marketing people, I would imagine that if any >> of them feel strongly about a name, that it should be trivial for them >> to make their case in a persuasive way. > > The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4) > currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider > "community" was included in previous iterations of the naming process, > so this very much feels like a TC power grab. Egad, it was definitely not intended to be a power grab, quite the opposite in fact (in my proposal, the TC is only granted the power to exempt really cool names from the rules). But since we're doing things in the open now, we can fix it. Considering that the process used to be a poll of the ~openstack group on launchpad, it seemed like a fairly straightforward mapping to ATCs. I wanted to find the easiest way to get the most people in the community likely to vote as possible without needing to generate a new voting roll. But you are correct: if we're fixing this, let's fix it right. The next best thing I can think of is to use the entire Foundation Individual Membership to produce the roll for the CIVS poll. It will be a bit of extra work, but I believe that is about as broad of a definition of our community that we use. >> I'm not willing to cede that choosing the name is by definition a >> marketing activity - and in fact the sense that such a position was >> developing is precisely why I think it's time to get this sorted. I >> think the dev community feels quite a bit of ownership on this topic and >> I would like to keep it that way. > > It's not by definition a technical activity either, so we are walking a > thin line. Like I commented on the review: I think the TC can retain > ownership of this process and keep the last bits of fun that were still > in it[1], as long as we find a way to keep non-ATCs in the naming > process, and take into account the problematic names raised by the > marketing community team (which will use those names as much as the > technical community does). Sounds great! I will revise my TC proposal. -Jim __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 28/01/15 23:27, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-01-28 10:29:38 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: >> The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4) >> currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider >> "community" was included in previous iterations of the naming process, >> so this very much feels like a TC power grab. > [...] > > The only reason I'm in favor of that simplification is logistics. If > representatives of our developer community are expected to run this > poll on our own then ATCs are an electorate we're able to produce > for that purpose. If it's going to be a vote across all OpenStack > Foundation individual members instead, then that election will need > to be run by (or at least in close cooperation with) the same people > who currently manage the board elections. If logistics are getting complicated, is it necessary to lock it down so much? I vaguely recall a launchpad poll in the past, which was effectively open to the public? Is voting on the shortlisted names something we should just open wide up so that we're including absolutely everyone in the fun? Regards, Tom __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 2015-01-28 10:29:38 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: > The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4) > currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider > "community" was included in previous iterations of the naming process, > so this very much feels like a TC power grab. [...] The only reason I'm in favor of that simplification is logistics. If representatives of our developer community are expected to run this poll on our own then ATCs are an electorate we're able to produce for that purpose. If it's going to be a vote across all OpenStack Foundation individual members instead, then that election will need to be run by (or at least in close cooperation with) the same people who currently manage the board elections. -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
Quick top-post apology... It's entirely possible that there are people who are reading these lists who do not personally know me or my tendency to overuse hyperbole. I would like to formally apologize for both the subject of this thread and my use of the word autocratic. They are both inflammatory and both imply a level malice or ill-will that I'm certain is not present in anyone. The salient point is that a thing that in the past felt both open and fun this time around seemed to become more opaque and heavy handed. I think, as I've said elsewhere, that we need to be very careful with decisions, however well meaning, that take place outside of the public context. So please accept my apology for my language - and please engage with me in the discussion around how to make sure people don't inadvertently begin to feel disenfranchised. Thanks, Monty On 01/27/2015 04:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. > The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the > exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. > > I propose: > > * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the > name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the > name of L at the K summit) > > * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at > least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice > > * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names > > * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name > > * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a > "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next > name on the list > > If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then > what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the > first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a > leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun > with it. > > Monty > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
Monty Taylor wrote: > You'll notice that I did say in my suggestion that ANYONE should be able > to propose a name - I believe that would include non-dev people. Since > the people in question are marketing people, I would imagine that if any > of them feel strongly about a name, that it should be trivial for them > to make their case in a persuasive way. The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4) currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider "community" was included in previous iterations of the naming process, so this very much feels like a TC power grab. > I'm not willing to cede that choosing the name is by definition a > marketing activity - and in fact the sense that such a position was > developing is precisely why I think it's time to get this sorted. I > think the dev community feels quite a bit of ownership on this topic and > I would like to keep it that way. It's not by definition a technical activity either, so we are walking a thin line. Like I commented on the review: I think the TC can retain ownership of this process and keep the last bits of fun that were still in it[1], as long as we find a way to keep non-ATCs in the naming process, and take into account the problematic names raised by the marketing community team (which will use those names as much as the technical community does). [1] FWIW, it's been a long time since I last considered the naming process as "fun". It's not been fun for me at all to handle this process recently and take hits from all sides (I receive more hatemail about this process than you would think). As we formalize and clarify this process, I would be glad to transfer the naming process to some TC-nominated election official. I consider all this "taking back the naming process" effort as a personal reflection on my inability to preserve the neutrality of the process. It used to be fun, yes, when I would throw random names on a whiteboard and get the room to pick. It no longer is. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 01/27/2015 06:05 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: > >> On Jan 27, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: >> >> I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. >> The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the >> exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. > > Autocratic? Could you elaborate? Right now we're starting from a set list of pre-approved names that there was absolutely no participation in the selection of and about which discussion is summarily shut down. I know it's with the best of intentions, but it's not ok. >> I propose: >> >> * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the >> name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the >> name of L at the K summit) >> >> * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at >> least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice >> >> * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names >> >> * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name >> >> * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a >> "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next >> name on the list >> >> If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then >> what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the >> first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a >> leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun >> with it. > > > If your goal is to actually involve our massive meritocracy, I’d suggest > expanding this thread to include at least the community marketing mailing > list rather than just the -dev mailing list (possibly also the Foundation > mailing list?). The release names are some of our most prominent brands, > meaning choosing them is by definition a marketing activity. Not including > the part of our meritocracy with experience in branding and marketing feels > counterintuitive to me (again if the goal is actually to be meritocratic). I was under the impression that the human names were "development codenames" and also this was a topic of discussion at the TC meeting today, which is why I popped it to the dev list - no slight or exclusion was intended! I have cross-posted this reply to foundat...@lists.openstack.org and market...@lists.openstack.org. You'll notice that I did say in my suggestion that ANYONE should be able to propose a name - I believe that would include non-dev people. Since the people in question are marketing people, I would imagine that if any of them feel strongly about a name, that it should be trivial for them to make their case in a persuasive way. I'm not willing to cede that choosing the name is by definition a marketing activity - and in fact the sense that such a position was developing is precisely why I think it's time to get this sorted. I think the dev community feels quite a bit of ownership on this topic and I would like to keep it that way. Thanks! Monty __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. > The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the > exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. Autocratic? Could you elaborate? > I propose: > > * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the > name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the > name of L at the K summit) > > * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at > least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice > > * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names > > * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name > > * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a > "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next > name on the list > > If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then > what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the > first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a > leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun > with it. If your goal is to actually involve our massive meritocracy, I’d suggest expanding this thread to include at least the community marketing mailing list rather than just the -dev mailing list (possibly also the Foundation mailing list?). The release names are some of our most prominent brands, meaning choosing them is by definition a marketing activity. Not including the part of our meritocracy with experience in branding and marketing feels counterintuitive to me (again if the goal is actually to be meritocratic). Jonathan __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
Monty Taylor writes: > I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. > The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the > exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. > > I propose: > > * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the > name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the > name of L at the K summit) > > * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at > least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice > > * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names > > * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name > > * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a > "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next > name on the list Thank you, I agree! I have proposed a change[1] to the governance repo that I believe implements the suggested process. Note that I kept the existing rules about the locality of the name, since I think that's a good part of the fun (anyone can come up with a cool "L" word, but finding one near the summit is a challenge). Of course it is easy to modify the naming rules without changing the process if we desire, and I made explicit the process for overriding the rules for names that sound really cool. Note that if this is approved, I would expect it to be used for the Miyazaki release, but not before. [1] https://review.openstack.org/150604 -Jim __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On 01/27/2015 05:19 PM, Jim Meyer wrote: +1 all the way down. More fun double-plus-good. —j On Jan 27, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. I propose: * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the name of L at the K summit) * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next name on the list If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun with it. Monty __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I nominate Ladysmith and Langley as the two obvious l named locations closest to Vancouver. Oh, and I think Monty is spot on __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
++ absolutely! Sent via mobile > On Jan 27, 2015, at 14:19, Jim Meyer wrote: > > +1 all the way down. > > More fun double-plus-good. > > —j > >> On Jan 27, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: >> >> I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. >> The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the >> exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. >> >> I propose: >> >> * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the >> name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the >> name of L at the K summit) >> >> * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at >> least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice >> >> * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names >> >> * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name >> >> * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a >> "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next >> name on the list >> >> If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then >> what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the >> first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a >> leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun >> with it. >> >> Monty >> >> __ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
+1 all the way down. More fun double-plus-good. —j > On Jan 27, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. > The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the > exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. > > I propose: > > * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the > name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the > name of L at the K summit) > > * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at > least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice > > * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names > > * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name > > * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a > "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next > name on the list > > If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then > what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the > first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a > leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun > with it. > > Monty > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. > The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the > exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. > > ++ > I propose: > > * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the > name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the > name of L at the K summit) > > * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at > least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice > > * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names > > * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name > > * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a > "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next > name on the list > > Huge +1 here. > If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then > what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the > first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a > leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun > with it. > > Agree with all your points Monty. This puts naming into the hands of the individual foundation members. Seems like it should be there. > Monty > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process
I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. I propose: * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the name of L at the K summit) * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next name on the list If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun with it. Monty __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
