<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hey everyone,</p>
<p>We recently collected naming suggestions for the X release name.
A lot of great suggestions by the community! Much more than I had
expected for this letter.</p>
<p>As a reminder, starting with the W release we had changed the
process for selecting the name [1]. We collected suggestions from
the community, then the members of the TC voted in a poll [2] to
select which name(s) out of the suggestions to go with. The
vetting of the top choices from that process is happening now, and
we should have a official result soon.</p>
<p>This is a bit of a mea culpa from me about an issue with how this
was conducted though. The naming process specifically states: "<span
style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 14px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align:
left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline
!important; float: none;">the poll should be run in a manner
that allows members of the community to see what each TC member
voted for.</span>" When I set up the CIVS poll, I failed to
check the box that would allow seeing the detailed results of the
poll. So while we do have the winning names, we are not able to
see which TC members voted and how. I apologize for missing this
step (and I've noted that we really should add some detailed
process for future coordinators to follow!).</p>
<p>I believe the intent with that part of the process was to allow
the community to see how your elected TC members voted as one
factor to consider when reelecting anyone. Also transparency to
show that no one is pushing through their own choices,
circumventing any process.</p>
<p>The two options I see at this point would be to either redo the
entire naming poll, or just try to capture what TC members voted
for somewhere so we have a record of that.</p>
<p>It's been long enough now since taking the poll that I don't
expect TC members to remember exactly how they ranked things. But
we've also started the vetting process through the Foundation
(lawyers engaged, etc) so I'd really rather not start over if we
can avoid it. If TC members could respond here with what they
remember voting for, I hope that is enough to satisfy the spirit
of the defined process.</p>
<p>If there are any members of the community that have a strong
objection to this, please say so. I leave it up to the TC then to
decide how to proceed.</p>
<p>Again, apologies for missing this step. Otherwise, I think the
process has worked well, and I hope we can declare an official X
name shortly.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Sean<br>
</p>
<p>[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#release-naming-process">https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#release-naming-process</a><br>
[2]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_7e6e96070af39fe7">https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_7e6e96070af39fe7</a><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>