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,
An
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-fr
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 worke
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 questio
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
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 possibl
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
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 gener
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 w
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
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
> -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-
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 a
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
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 lik
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 inflammator
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
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
> 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?
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 o
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 opp
++ 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 proce
+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
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 a
24 matches
Mail list logo