---- On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:44:19 -0500 Dan Smith <dms@danplanet.com> wrote ----
I'm highly disappointed in this 'decision', and would like for you to reconsider. I see the reasons you cite, but I feel like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Disagreements need not be feared, why not allow them to be aired publicly? That's a tenet of this open community. Allow names to be downvoted with reason during the proposal phase, and they'll organically fall-off from favor. [...]
I'm totally fine with the foundation taking it over completely if that's what they want to do. My reasoning for wanting to do away with names is primarily that it has become more labor-intensive than beneficial for the TC, in my opinion. I have other lesser reasons too, but they're not as important.
I'm sure everyone dutifully clicked on all of the links gmann provided, but let me just make sure you see this one:
https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/677747
"Let the foundation do it" didn't even make it to the final round of consideration the last time the process was considered :)
I have updated all the 1. problem 2. issues raised by community 3. solution we already discussed in the review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/839897/2/reference/relea... I would request all of us to read them in detail and understand the problem and what all solution we already discussed. One important point here to note is that problem is not *who is doing the process* instead it is *'name' with cultural, historical, and poltical reason*. If you think TC doing the process or Community members doing it (before couple of cycle, it was community member) is the problem and foundation doing it can solve this issue, I will be more happy to know the what all new ways foundation will try to solve these problem. Because key here is solve the problem or drop the things which create the problem instead of just shifting the problem from one place to other. -gmann
--Dan