On Aug 4, 2019, at 3:57 AM, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@gmail.com> wrote:

One of the most important one is missing: Urumqi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi> . The top 6 should actually not be counted since their Romanized spelling (pinyin) does not start with U.

Jeremy has already addressed the reason for dropping Urumqui. I made similar judgement calls on some of the suggestions not related to geography because I easily found negative connotations for them. For the other items you refer to, I do see spellings starting with U there in the list we were given. I do not claim to understand the differences in the way those names have been translated into those forms, though. Are you saying those are invalid spellings?

For cities like Urumqi, Ulanqab, Ulanhot, there are no need for the pinyin spelling since the name is following native's language.

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:53 AM Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com <mailto:doug@doughellmann.com>> wrote: Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen> 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou> 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane> 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling> 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai> 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake> 乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River> (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html <http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html> Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html>

-- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer OpenStack, Kubernetes, CNCF, LF Edge, ONNX, Kubeflow, OpenSDS, Open Service Broker API, OCP, Hyperledger, ETSI, SNIA, DMTF, W3C

On Aug 4, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch> wrote:

I would also prefer not to establish too much precedence for non-geographical names. I feel Train should remain a special case (as it was related to the conference location, although not a geographical relation).

We’ve got some good choices in the U* place names (although I’ll need some help with pronunciation, like Bexar)

Tim

My understanding is that most of the other names were suggested by the Chinese contributor community, so I felt comfortable leaving them on the list even though I will be voting for one of the place names. Doug

...

On 4 Aug 2019, at 16:11, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com <mailto:doug@doughellmann.com>> wrote:

...

On Aug 4, 2019, at 3:57 AM, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@gmail.com <mailto:zhipengh512@gmail.com>> wrote:

One of the most important one is missing: Urumqi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi> . The top 6 should actually not be counted since their Romanized spelling (pinyin) does not start with U.

Jeremy has already addressed the reason for dropping Urumqui. I made similar judgement calls on some of the suggestions not related to geography because I easily found negative connotations for them.

For the other items you refer to, I do see spellings starting with U there in the list we were given. I do not claim to understand the differences in the way those names have been translated into those forms, though. Are you saying those are invalid spellings?

...

For cities like Urumqi, Ulanqab, Ulanhot, there are no need for the pinyin spelling since the name is following native's language.

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:53 AM Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com <mailto:doug@doughellmann.com>> wrote: Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen> 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou> 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane> 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling> 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai> 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake> 乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River> (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html <http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html> Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html>

-- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer OpenStack, Kubernetes, CNCF, LF Edge, ONNX, Kubeflow, OpenSDS, Open Service Broker API, OCP, Hyperledger, ETSI, SNIA, DMTF, W3C

On Aug 4, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@gmail.com> wrote:

Not quite understand what [GR] stands for but at least for top 6 ones the correct Romanized Pinyin spelling does not start with U :)

All the rest looks fine :)

It is another romanization system [1]. During the brainstorming process we were told that using it was acceptable, although less common than Pinyin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwoyeu_Romatzyh

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 10:11 PM Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com <mailto:doug@doughellmann.com>> wrote:

...

On Aug 4, 2019, at 3:57 AM, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@gmail.com <mailto:zhipengh512@gmail.com>> wrote:

One of the most important one is missing: Urumqi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi> . The top 6 should actually not be counted since their Romanized spelling (pinyin) does not start with U.

Jeremy has already addressed the reason for dropping Urumqui. I made similar judgement calls on some of the suggestions not related to geography because I easily found negative connotations for them.

For the other items you refer to, I do see spellings starting with U there in the list we were given. I do not claim to understand the differences in the way those names have been translated into those forms, though. Are you saying those are invalid spellings?

...

For cities like Urumqi, Ulanqab, Ulanhot, there are no need for the pinyin spelling since the name is following native's language.

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:53 AM Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com <mailto:doug@doughellmann.com>> wrote: Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen> 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou> 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane> 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling> 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai> 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake> 乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River> (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html <http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html> Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html>

-- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer OpenStack, Kubernetes, CNCF, LF Edge, ONNX, Kubeflow, OpenSDS, Open Service Broker API, OCP, Hyperledger, ETSI, SNIA, DMTF, W3C

-- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer OpenStack, Kubernetes, CNCF, LF Edge, ONNX, Kubeflow, OpenSDS, Open Service Broker API, OCP, Hyperledger, ETSI, SNIA, DMTF, W3C

Fascinating ! All good choices :) On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:40 AM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:

On 2019-08-05 00:18:15 +0800 (+0800), Zhipeng Huang wrote:

...

Not quite understand what [GR] stands for [...]

"Gwoyeu Romatzyh (pinyin: Guóyǔ Luómǎzì, literally "National Language Romanization"), abbreviated GR, is a system for writing Mandarin Chinese in the Latin alphabet. The system was conceived by Yuen Ren Chao and developed by a group of linguists including Chao and Lin Yutang from 1925 to 1926. Chao himself later published influential works in linguistics using GR. In addition a small number of other textbooks and dictionaries in GR were published in Hong Kong and overseas from 1942 to 2000."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwoyeu_Romatzyh

-- Jeremy Stanley

-- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang Principle Engineer OpenStack, Kubernetes, CNCF, LF Edge, ONNX, Kubeflow, OpenSDS, Open Service Broker API, OCP, Hyperledger, ETSI, SNIA, DMTF, W3C

On Aug 5, 2019, at 3:40 AM, Rico Lin <rico.lin.guanyu@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:53 AM Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com <mailto:doug@doughellmann.com>> wrote:

...

Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen> 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou> 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane> 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling> 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai> 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake>

For the above options, it's not common to use [GR] system, in Shanghai (or almost entire China area). So if we like to reduce confusion and unnecessary arguments also to get recognized by audiences (as width as we can), I don't think these are good choices.

Ok, based on your input and Howard’s I will just drop these options from the proposed list.

As for all below geographic options, most of them originally from different languages like Mongolian or Russian, so generally speaking, most people won't use Pingyi system for that name. And I don't think it helps to put it's Pinyin on top too.

Are you saying we should not include any of these names either, or just that when we present the poll we should not include the Pinyin spelling?

...

乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River> (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ)

I think this might be my fault here. because it's *Ussuri*! so let's s/Ussri/Ussuir/ (bad Rico! bad!)

I will update the wiki page and ensure this is correct in the poll.

...

乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin> (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn)

...

Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html <http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html> Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html>

-- May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, Rico Lin irc: ricolin

On 5/08/19 3:40 AM, Rico Lin wrote:

it's *Ussuri*! so let's s/Ussri/Ussuir/ (bad Rico! bad!)

and after that we can s/Ussuir/Ussuri/ ;)

On Aug 5, 2019, at 9:36 AM, Jeremy Freudberg <jeremyfreudberg@gmail.com> wrote:

You can drop the Pinyin equivalents from the Mongolian/Russian options when drawing up the poll. The Pinyin spelling for those options was added to the Wiki document (by me) to match what was done for the GR options. I found it important to note that the options which conveniently began with U under the typical transliteration systems of those languages only did so because those systems are, essentially, not Chinese. But, all that said, it's pretty rare to see Mongolian/Russian place names written in Pinyin so it would come off as a bit of a confusing distraction to actually include the Pinyin equivalents in the poll itself.

Now, my two cents about the poll options: - I'm against using GR spelling... regardless of the actual history of the use of GR, I've already seen some Chinese contributors state that using GR is, at best, weird.

Those will be dropped.

- I'm against using Mongolian/Manchu/Russian names... I do not see how a name from one of these languages is at all representative of Shanghai.

The geographic area under consideration was expanded to "all of China" because it was proving too difficult to come up with place names starting with U from within the narrower area surrounding Shanghai.

- I'm against using arbitrary English words... "Train" was fine because it represented the conference itself and something about our community. "Umpire" and "Umbrella" don't represent anything.

My understanding is those items were part of the list produced by the Chinese contributor community via their discussions on wechat. I only removed the ones I thought might have obvious negative connotations, and I’m content to leave the rest in the list and have the voters decide if they’re suitable names.

- I'm in favor of using English words that describe something about the host city or country... for example I think "Urban" is a great because Shanghai is by certain metrics one of the most urban areas in the world, China has many of the world's largest cities, etc.

Deciding whether certain options should even appear on the poll is outside my responsibility.

Lucky you. ;-)

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 8:51 PM Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:

...

Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake 乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

Hi -- That's an interesting proposal. Do you believe that your suggestion (non-standard modification of Pinyin) is more appropriate than the alternatives (using Mongolian/Russian place names, or using English words)? Would Chinese contributors understand these names with switched letters? On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:31 PM LIU Yulong <i@liuyulong.me> wrote:

Hi,

Please allow me to re-post my former proposal here again [1]. Let me quote some contents: There is no Standard Chinese Pinyin starts with 'U'. So I have a suggestion, because we have 'Wu', 'Lu', 'Hu', 'Nu', 'Yu' and so on. How about we give the OpenStack version name with letters order of rotation? The first word of Pinyin OpenStack version Name will have a sequence switching. For instance, we can use 'Uw', 'Uy' to represent the Standard Pinyin 'Wu' and 'Yu'. Then we will have a lot of choices. Here is my list: 普陀区: Uptuo,Putuo District, Shanghai; Can also be the Mount Putuo, 普陀山 浦东区: Updong,Pudong District, Shanghai 徐汇区: Uxhui,Xuhui District, Shanghai 陆家嘴: Uljiazui,National Financial Center of the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China, Shanghai 武功: Uwgong, town of Shaanxi Province, the birthplace of farming civilization of the China; pun for Kongfu 乌镇: Uwzhen, yes, again 榆林: Uylin, City of China, Shaanxi province 无锡: Uwxi, City of China, Jiangsu province 玉溪: Uyxi, City of China, Yunnan province. 湖南：Uhnan, Hunan Province 鲁：Ul, the abbreviation of Shandong Province

Thank you

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002706....

LIU Yulong

------------------ Original ------------------ From: "Doug Hellmann"<doug@doughellmann.com>; Date: Sun, Aug 4, 2019 08:48 AM To: "openstack-discuss"<openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org>; Subject: [all][tc] U Cycle Naming Poll

Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake 乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

On 2019-08-05 15:41:30 -0400 (-0400), Jeremy Freudberg wrote:

Responding to myself with a different approach, as seen elsewhere in the thread. [...]

While I appreciate everyone's innovative ideas for coming up with additional names, the time for adding entries to the list has passed. We need a name for the U cycle, like, yesterday. Not having one is holding up a variety of governance and event planning tasks and generally making things more complicated for everyone involved. There were threads on this mailing list in February and April asking for help putting together a solution. People pitched in and the list Doug sent is what they came up with (minus some which we removed in advance for a variety of reasons). The remaining list still seems to have a number of viable options, and this is the phase where we're asking if anyone objects to any of what's there before we put together a community poll to rank them a few days from now. -- Jeremy Stanley

Interesting idea. That makes me wonder if we have to pick a name starting with 'U'. If the rule can be relaxed to allow a name with 'U' as the second letter, it would be much easier. Best regards, Hongbin On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:34 PM LIU Yulong <i@liuyulong.me> wrote:

Hi,

Please allow me to re-post my former proposal here again [1]. Let me quote some contents: There is no Standard Chinese Pinyin starts with 'U'. So I have a suggestion, because we have 'Wu', 'Lu', 'Hu', 'Nu', 'Yu' and so on. How about we give the OpenStack version name with letters order of rotation? The first word of Pinyin OpenStack version Name will have a sequence switching. For instance, we can use 'Uw', 'Uy' to represent the Standard Pinyin 'Wu' and 'Yu'. Then we will have a lot of choices. Here is my list: 普陀区: Uptuo,Putuo District, Shanghai; Can also be the Mount Putuo, 普陀山 浦东区: Updong,Pudong District, Shanghai 徐汇区: Uxhui,Xuhui District, Shanghai 陆家嘴: Uljiazui,National Financial Center of the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China, Shanghai 武功: Uwgong, town of Shaanxi Province, the birthplace of farming civilization of the China; pun for Kongfu 乌镇: Uwzhen, yes, again 榆林: Uylin, City of China, Shaanxi province 无锡: Uwxi, City of China, Jiangsu province 玉溪: Uyxi, City of China, Yunnan province. 湖南：Uhnan, Hunan Province 鲁：Ul, the abbreviation of Shandong Province

Thank you

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002706....

LIU Yulong

------------------ Original ------------------ *From: * "Doug Hellmann"<doug@doughellmann.com>; *Date: * Sun, Aug 4, 2019 08:48 AM *To: * "openstack-discuss"<openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org>; *Subject: * [all][tc] U Cycle Naming Poll

Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake 乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

I don’t think we want to start changing the rules at this point. For one thing, we have a lot of automation built up around the idea that our release names come alphabetically, so we really do need to choose something that starts with U this time around. I would rather we choose something that naturally starts with U, rather than flipping the first two letters of some other words that have U in them. Based on other feedback in this thread, we have dropped some of the proposed names so the list of candidates is now: 乌苏里江 Ussuri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia umbrella ultimate Unless we hear more feedback that those are invalid or inadequate by the end of the week, we will make up the poll using those names. Thanks, Doug

On Aug 5, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Hongbin Lu <hongbin034@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting idea. That makes me wonder if we have to pick a name starting with 'U'. If the rule can be relaxed to allow a name with 'U' as the second letter, it would be much easier.

Best regards, Hongbin

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:34 PM LIU Yulong <i@liuyulong.me> wrote: Hi,

Please allow me to re-post my former proposal here again [1]. Let me quote some contents: There is no Standard Chinese Pinyin starts with 'U'. So I have a suggestion, because we have 'Wu', 'Lu', 'Hu', 'Nu', 'Yu' and so on. How about we give the OpenStack version name with letters order of rotation? The first word of Pinyin OpenStack version Name will have a sequence switching. For instance, we can use 'Uw', 'Uy' to represent the Standard Pinyin 'Wu' and 'Yu'. Then we will have a lot of choices. Here is my list: 普陀区: Uptuo,Putuo District, Shanghai; Can also be the Mount Putuo, 普陀山 浦东区: Updong,Pudong District, Shanghai 徐汇区: Uxhui,Xuhui District, Shanghai 陆家嘴: Uljiazui,National Financial Center of the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China, Shanghai 武功: Uwgong, town of Shaanxi Province, the birthplace of farming civilization of the China; pun for Kongfu 乌镇: Uwzhen, yes, again 榆林: Uylin, City of China, Shaanxi province 无锡: Uwxi, City of China, Jiangsu province

玉溪: Uyxi, City of China, Yunnan province. 湖南：Uhnan, Hunan Province 鲁：Ul, the abbreviation of Shandong Province

Thank you

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002706....

LIU Yulong

------------------ Original ------------------ From: "Doug Hellmann"<doug@doughellmann.com>; Date: Sun, Aug 4, 2019 08:48 AM To: "openstack-discuss"<openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org>; Subject: [all][tc] U Cycle Naming Poll

Every OpenStack development cycle and release has a code-name. As with everything we do, the process of choosing the name is open and based on input from communty members. The name critera are described in [1], and this time around we were looking for names starting with U associated with China. With some extra assistance from local community members (thank you to everyone who helped!), we have a list of candidate names that will go into the poll. Below is a subset of the names propsed, including those that meet the standard criteria and some of the suggestions that do not. Before we start the poll, the process calls for us to provide a period of 1 week so that any names removed from the proposals can be discussed and any last-minute objections can be raised. We will start the poll next week using this list, including any modifications based on that discussion.

乌镇镇 [GR]:Ujenn [PY]:Wuzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen 温州市 [GR]:Uanjou [PY]:Wenzhou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou 乌衣巷 [GR]:Ui [PY]:Wuyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuyi_Lane 温岭市 [GR]:Uanliing [PY]:Wenling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenling 威海市 [GR]:Ueihae [PY]:Weihai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai 微山湖 [GR]:Ueishan [PY]:Weishan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansi_Lake 乌苏里江 Ussri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūsūlǐ) 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánchábù) 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlánhàotè) 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūlātè) 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name. Pinyin would be Wūzhūmùqìn) Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html Unicorn Urban Unique Umpire Utopia Umbrella Ultimate

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:56 AM Zane Bitter <zbitter@redhat.com> wrote:

So to be clear, I expect the TC to get a vote on whether any names not meeting the criteria are added to the poll, and I am personally inclined to vote -1.

+1. Since we still got some days before we officially start the poll, we can run a quick inner poll within TCs by irc/CIVS to final the list. So maybe during office hours on Thursday?

- ZB

-- May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, Rico Lin irc: ricolin

Rico Lin <rico.lin.guanyu@gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:41 AM James E. Blair <corvus@inaugust.com> wrote:

...

I had previously added an entry to the suggestions wiki page, but I did not see it in this email:

* University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_and_colleges_in_Shanghai

...

(Shanghai is famous for its universities)

To pick one at random, the "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology" is a place in Shanghai; I think that meets the requirement for "physical or human geography".

It's a point of pride that Shanghai has so many renowned universities, so I think it's a good choice and one well worth considering.

Just added it in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Release_Naming/U_Proposals Will make sure TCs evaluate on this one when evaluating names that do not meet the criteria Thanks for the idea

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I had already added it to the wiki page more than a week ago -- you can still see my entry there at the bottom of the list of names that do meet the criteria. Here's the diff: https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Release_Naming%2FU_Proposals&type=revision&diff=171231&oldid=171132 Also, I do think this meets the criteria, since there is a place in Shanghai with "University" in the name. This is similar to "Pike" which is short for the "Massachusetts Turnpike", which was deemed to meet the criteria for the P naming poll. Of course, as the coordinator it's up to you to determine whether it meets the criteria, but I believe it does, and hope you agree. Thanks, Jim

After discussion in this ML and in irc [1], I will finalize the U release name candidate list [2] and will go forward to create a public poll at 2019-08-12. Here is finalized name list from etherpad: - 乌苏里江 Ussuri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_River (the name is shared among Mongolian/Manchu/Russian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) - 乌兰察布市 Ulanqab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanqab (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) - 乌兰浩特市 Ulanhot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhot (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) - 乌兰苏海组 Ulansu (Ulansu sea) (the name is in Mongolian) - 乌拉特中旗 Urad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urad_Middle_Banner (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) - 东/西乌珠穆沁旗 Ujimqin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujimqin (the name is in Mongolian; this is a common Latin-alphabet transcription of the name) - Ula "Miocene Baogeda Ula" (the name is in Mongolian) - Uma http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/20/Uma.html So thanks to all who help with propose names, provide solutions or join discussions. And big thanks for Doug who put a significant amount of effort on this. [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-... [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/u-name-poll-email On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:58 PM Rico Lin <rico.lin.guanyu@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:30 PM James E. Blair <corvus@inaugust.com> wrote:

...

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I had already added it to the wiki page more than a week ago -- you can still see my entry there at the bottom of the list of names that do meet the criteria. Here's the diff:

https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Release_Naming%2FU_Proposals&type=revision&diff=171231&oldid=171132

...

Also, I do think this meets the criteria, since there is a place in Shanghai with "University" in the name. This is similar to "Pike" which is short for the "Massachusetts Turnpike", which was deemed to meet the criteria for the P naming poll.

As we discussed in IRC:#openstack-tc, change the reference from general Universities to specific University will make it meet the criteria "The name must refer to the physical or human geography" Added it back to the 'meet criteria' list and update it with reference to specific university "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology". feel free to correct me, if I misunderstand the criteria rule. :)

...

Of course, as the coordinator it's up to you to determine whether it meets the criteria, but I believe it does, and hope you agree.

...

Thanks,

Jim

-- May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, Rico Lin irc: ricolin

-- May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, *Rico Lin*irc: ricolin

On 2019-08-11 10:30:32 -0700 (-0700), James E. Blair wrote: [...]

I still do believe that it meets all of the criteria. In particular, it meets this:

* The name must refer to the physical or human geography of the region encompassing the location of the OpenStack summit for the corresponding release.

It is short for "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology", which is a place in Shanghai. Here is their website: http://en.usst.edu.cn/ [...]

This got discussed after last week's TC meeting during Thursday office hours, and I'm sorry I didn't think to give you a heads-up when the topic arose: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-... One of the objections raised was that "University" in the name "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology" was a general class of place or feature and not a particular place or feature. But as you pointed out in IRC a while back (and which I should have remembered), there is precedent with the Pike cycle name: Pike (the Massachusetts Turnpike, also the Mass Pike...) https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Release_Naming/P_Proposals#Proposed_Names Another objection raised is that "OpenStack University" was the old name for what we now call the OpenStack Upstream Institute and that it could lead to name confusion if chosen. A search of the Web for that name last week turned up only two occurrences for me on the first page of results, both of which were lingering references in our wiki which I immediately corrected, so I don't think that argument holds. Then there was the suggestion that "University" might somehow be a trademark risk, though in my opinion that's why we have the OSF vet the preliminary winning results after the community ranks them (so that the TC doesn't need to concern itself with trademark issues). It was also pointed out that each time we have a poll with a mix of English and non-English names/words, an English name inevitably wins. Since this concern isn't backed up by the documented process[*] we're ostensibly following, I'm not really sure how to address it. Ultimately I was unable to convince my colleagues on the TC that "University" was a qualifying name, and so it was handled as a possible exception to the normal rules which, following a poll of most TC members, was decided would not be granted. [*] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html -- Jeremy Stanley

Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> writes:

On 2019-08-11 10:30:32 -0700 (-0700), James E. Blair wrote: [...]

...

I still do believe that it meets all of the criteria. In particular, it meets this:

* The name must refer to the physical or human geography of the region encompassing the location of the OpenStack summit for the corresponding release.

It is short for "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology", which is a place in Shanghai. Here is their website: http://en.usst.edu.cn/ [...]

This got discussed after last week's TC meeting during Thursday office hours, and I'm sorry I didn't think to give you a heads-up when the topic arose:

http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-...

One of the objections raised was that "University" in the name "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology" was a general class of place or feature and not a particular place or feature. But as you pointed out in IRC a while back (and which I should have remembered), there is precedent with the Pike cycle name:

Pike (the Massachusetts Turnpike, also the Mass Pike...)

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Release_Naming/P_Proposals#Proposed_Names

Another objection raised is that "OpenStack University" was the old name for what we now call the OpenStack Upstream Institute and that it could lead to name confusion if chosen. A search of the Web for that name last week turned up only two occurrences for me on the first page of results, both of which were lingering references in our wiki which I immediately corrected, so I don't think that argument holds.

Then there was the suggestion that "University" might somehow be a trademark risk, though in my opinion that's why we have the OSF vet the preliminary winning results after the community ranks them (so that the TC doesn't need to concern itself with trademark issues).

It was also pointed out that each time we have a poll with a mix of English and non-English names/words, an English name inevitably wins. Since this concern isn't backed up by the documented process[*] we're ostensibly following, I'm not really sure how to address it.

Ultimately I was unable to convince my colleagues on the TC that "University" was a qualifying name, and so it was handled as a possible exception to the normal rules which, following a poll of most TC members, was decided would not be granted.

[*] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

Thanks for the clarification. The only point raised which should have any bearing on the process at this time is is the first one, and I think that has been addressed. The process is designed to collect the widest range of names, and let the *community* decide. It is not the function of the TC to vet the names for suitability before the poll. The community itself is to do that, in the poll. And because vetting for trademark is a specialized and costly task, that happens *after* the poll, so that we don't waste time and money on it. It was exactly the kind of seemingly arbitrary process of producing the names for the poll which is on display here that prompted us to write down this more open process in the first place. It's unfortunate that the last three objections that you cite are clearly in contradiction to that. We pride ourselves on fairness and openness, but we seem to have lost the enthusiasm for that here. I would rather we not do this at all than to do it poorly, so I have proposed we simply stop naming releases. It's more trouble than it's worth. Here's my proposed TC resolution for that: https://review.opendev.org/675788 -Jim

On 12/08/19 10:08 AM, James E. Blair wrote:

Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> writes:

...

On 2019-08-11 10:30:32 -0700 (-0700), James E. Blair wrote: [...]

...

I still do believe that it meets all of the criteria. In particular, it meets this:

* The name must refer to the physical or human geography of the region encompassing the location of the OpenStack summit for the corresponding release.

It is short for "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology", which is a place in Shanghai. Here is their website: http://en.usst.edu.cn/ [...]

This got discussed after last week's TC meeting during Thursday office hours, and I'm sorry I didn't think to give you a heads-up when the topic arose:

http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-...

One of the objections raised was that "University" in the name "University of Shanghai for Science and Technology" was a general class of place or feature and not a particular place or feature. But as you pointed out in IRC a while back (and which I should have remembered), there is precedent with the Pike cycle name:

Pike (the Massachusetts Turnpike, also the Mass Pike...)

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Release_Naming/P_Proposals#Proposed_Names

Another objection raised is that "OpenStack University" was the old name for what we now call the OpenStack Upstream Institute and that it could lead to name confusion if chosen. A search of the Web for that name last week turned up only two occurrences for me on the first page of results, both of which were lingering references in our wiki which I immediately corrected, so I don't think that argument holds.

Then there was the suggestion that "University" might somehow be a trademark risk, though in my opinion that's why we have the OSF vet the preliminary winning results after the community ranks them (so that the TC doesn't need to concern itself with trademark issues).

It was also pointed out that each time we have a poll with a mix of English and non-English names/words, an English name inevitably wins. Since this concern isn't backed up by the documented process[*] we're ostensibly following, I'm not really sure how to address it.

Ultimately I was unable to convince my colleagues on the TC that "University" was a qualifying name, and so it was handled as a possible exception to the normal rules which, following a poll of most TC members, was decided would not be granted.

[*] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

Thanks for the clarification. The only point raised which should have any bearing on the process at this time is is the first one, and I think that has been addressed.

To be clear, the thing that stopped us from automatically including it was that there was no consensus that it met the criteria, which exclude words that describe a general class of Geographic feature. I regret that you didn't get an opportunity to discuss this; I initially raised it in response to you and I both being pinged[1], but we probably should have tried to ping you again when discussions resumed during office hours the next day. FWIW I never thought that Pike should have been automatically included either, but nobody asked me at the time ;) Once it's treated as an exception put to a TC vote, it's up to TC members to decide if it "sounds really cool"[2] enough to make an exception for. I think we can all agree that this is an extremely subjective decision, and I'd expect that people took all of the factors mentioned in this thread (both for and against) into account in their vote. In the end, a majority of the TC decided not to add it to the list. I hope that helps clarify the process that led us here. cheers, Zane. [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-...) [2] actual words

IMO, it's good to release the whole thing out of TC's responsibility, and do hope we can do these in an automatic way, so like people can just raise whatever cool name it's and see if that pass a CI job. :) As long as the whole naming process is still under TC's governance and words like *the process should consider potential issues of trademark* still in [1] (which I think we should specific put down as a more formal rule, or remove it out of that docs), I believe TCs still need to confirm the final list. And that's why I'm the one asking TCs to put their final confirm with it through the inner TC poll during office hour. Maybe the process will change though all these discussions and patches you proposed on governance repo (kind of hope it will, at least we should improve the docs to make more clear info. for all), but as long as the inner TC poll result does not turn over, I will respect the result, and hope that's good enough reason to call that list is final. This discussion definitely worth to keep developing, but as I promised for postponing 24 hours from yesterday, it's time to bring the public poll up. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:22 AM James E. Blair <corvus@inaugust.com> wrote:

Zane Bitter <zbitter@redhat.com> writes:

...

To be clear, the thing that stopped us from automatically including it was that there was no consensus that it met the criteria, which exclude words that describe a general class of Geographic feature. I regret that you didn't get an opportunity to discuss this; I initially raised it in response to you and I both being pinged[1], but we probably should have tried to ping you again when discussions resumed during office hours the next day. FWIW I never thought that Pike should have been automatically included either, but nobody asked me at the time ;)

Thanks, I suppose it's better late than never to have this discussion.

Happily, the process does not require that the TC come to a consensus on whether a name fits the criteria. In establishing the process, this was a deliberate decision to avoid the TC having exactly that kind of discussion because we all have better things to be doing. That is why this is the sole purview of the election official.

We should remember that the purpose of this process is to collect as many names as possible, weeding out only the obvious non-conforming candidates, so that the whole community may decide on the name.

As I understand it, the sequence of events that led us here was:

A) Doug (as interim unofficial election official) removed the name for unspecified reasons. [1]

B) I objected to the removal. This is in accordance with step 5 of the process:

Once the list is finalized and publicized, a one-week period shall elapse before the start of the election so that any names removed from consideration because they did not meet the Release Name Criteria may be discussed. Names erroneously removed may be re-added during this period, and the Technical Committee may vote to add exceptional names (which do not meet the standard criteria).

C) Rico (the election official at the time) agreed with my reasoning that it was erroneously removed and re-added the name. [2]

D) The list was re-issued and the name was once again missing. Four reasons were cited, three of which have no place being considered prior to voting, and the fourth is a claim that it does not meet the criteria.

Aside from no explanation being given for (A) (and assuming that the explanation, if offered, would have been that the name does not meet the criteria) the events A through C are fairly in accordance with the documented process.

I believe the following:

* It was incorrect for the name to have been removed in the first place (but that's fine, it's an appeal-able decision and I have appealed it).

* It was correct for Rico to re-add the name. There are several reasons for this:

* Points 1 and 2 of the Release Name Criteria are not at issue.

* The name refers to the human geography of the area around the summit (it is a name of a place you can find on the map), and so satisfies point 3.

* I believe that point 4, which it has been recently asserted the name does not satisfy, was not intended to exclude names which describe features. It was a point of clarification that should a feature have a descriptive term, it should not be included, for the sake of brevity. Point 4 begins with the length limitation, and therefore should be considered as a discussion primarily of length. It states:

The name must be a single word with a maximum of 10 characters. Words that describe the feature should not be included, so "Foo City" or "Foo Peak" would both be eligible as "Foo".

Note that the examples in the text are "Foo City" and "Foo Peak" for "Foo". Obviously, that example would be for the "F" release where "City" and "Peak" would not be candidates. Therefore, point 4 is effectively silent on whether words like "City" and "Peak" would be permitted for the "C" and "P" releases.

* The name "Pike" was accepted as meeting the criteria. It is short for "Massachusetts Turnpike". It serves the same function as a descriptive name and serves and precedent.

* I will absolutely agree that point 4 could provide more clarity on this and therefore a subjective evaluation must be made. On this point, we should refer to step 4 of the Release Naming Process:

In general, the official should strive to make objective determinations as to whether a name meets the Release Name Criteria, but if subjective evaluation is required, should be generous in interpreting the rules. It is not necessary to reduce the list of proposed names to a small number.

This indicates again that Rico was correct to accept the name, because of the "generous interpretation" clause. The ambiguity in point 4 combined with the precedent set by Pike is certainly sufficient reason to be "generous".

* While the election official is free to consult with whomever they wish, including the rest of the TC, there is no formal role for the TC in reducing the names before voting begins (in fact, the process clearly indicates that is an anti-goal). So after Rico re-added the name, it was not necessary to further review or reverse the decision.

I appreciate that the TC proactively considered the name under the "really cool" exception, even though I had not requested it (deeming it to be unnecessary). Thank you for that.

Given the above reasoning, I hope that I have made a compelling case that the name meets the criteria (or at least, warrants "generous interpretation") and would appreciate it if the name were added back to the poll.

Thanks,

Jim

[1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-... [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-August/008334.ht...

-- May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, *Rico Lin*irc: ricolin

On 2019-08-13 07:57:29 -0700 (-0700), James E. Blair wrote: [...]

Several folks, including you, have said that they wish the process were out of the TC's hands. The fact is that it already is, but unfortunately people seem to keep wanting to manipulate the list before it goes out for a vote. [...]

You've also convinced me that I should not have requested removal of politically-sensitive choices from the list, since we could have done that as part of the community discussion instead of prior to it. I feel like the goal in narrowing the list of options was to speed up the public review period so we could get on with the vote quickly and have a name sooner, but in retrospect that raised as much or more discussion than leaving them in likely would have done. -- Jeremy Stanley

Sean Mooney <smooney@redhat.com> writes:

On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 07:57 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:

...

Since we take particular pride in our community participation, the fact that we have not been able or willing to do this correctly reflects very poorly on us. I would rather that we not do this at all than do it badly, so I think this should be the last release with a name. I've proposed that change here:

https://review.opendev.org/675788

not to takethis out of context but it is rather long thread so i have sniped the bit i wanted to comment on.

i thnik not nameing release would be problemeatic on two fronts. one without a common comunity name i think codename or other conventint names are going to crop up as many have been refering to the U release as the unicorn release just to avoid the confusion between "U" and "you" when speak about the release untill we have an offical name. if we had no offical names i think we woudl keep using those placeholders at least on irc or in person. (granted we would not use them for code or docs)

that is a minor thing but the more distributive issue i see is that nova's U release will be 21.0.0? and neutorns U release will be 16.0.0? without a name to refer to the set of compatiable project for a given version we woudl only have the letter and form a marketing perspective and even from development perspective i think that will be problematic.

we could just have the V release but i think it loses something in clarity.

That's a good point. Maybe we could just number them? V would be "OpenStack Release 22". Or we could refer to them by date, as we used to, but without attempting to use dates as actual version numbers. -Jim

Sean Mooney wrote:

On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 07:57 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:

...

Since we take particular pride in our community participation, the fact that we have not been able or willing to do this correctly reflects very poorly on us. I would rather that we not do this at all than do it badly, so I think this should be the last release with a name. I've proposed that change here:

https://review.opendev.org/675788

not to takethis out of context but it is rather long thread so i have sniped the bit i wanted to comment on.

i thnik not nameing release would be problemeatic on two fronts. one without a common comunity name i think codename or other conventint names are going to crop up as many have been refering to the U release as the unicorn release just to avoid the confusion between "U" and "you" when speak about the release untill we have an offical name. if we had no offical names i think we woudl keep using those placeholders at least on irc or in person. (granted we would not use them for code or docs)

that is a minor thing but the more distributive issue i see is that nova's U release will be 21.0.0? and neutorns U release will be 16.0.0? without a name to refer to the set of compatiable project for a given version we woudl only have the letter and form a marketing perspective and even from development perspective i think that will be problematic.

we could just have the V release but i think it loses something in clarity.

So... I agree the naming process is creating a lot of problems (the reason I decided a long time ago to stop handling it myself, the moment it stopped being a fun exercise). But I still think we need a way to refer to a given series, and we have lots of tooling that is based on the fact that it's alpha-ordered. Ideally we'd have a way to name releases that removes the subjectivity and polling parts, which seems to be the painful part. Just have some objective way of ranking a limited number of options for trademark analysis, and be done with it. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

On Aug 13, 2019, at 12:09 PM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com> wrote:

...

Ideally we'd have a way to name releases that removes the subjectivity and polling parts, which seems to be the painful part. Just have some objective way of ranking a limited number of options for trademark analysis, and be done with it.

Or use numbers, years,...

The whole release cycle was based on Ubuntu patterns, since many early OpenStackers came from Ubuntu. OpenStack, though, just used the alphabetical names for releases, rather than also using the YYYY.MM pattern. The Ubuntu animal names are cute, but most people refer to a release by the year/month name, as it's simpler. The problem with this naming cycle in the convergence of the next letter being a letter that doesn’t occur natively in the language where the summit is held. That possibility was not considered when the naming requirements were adopted, and is the root cause of all these naming discussions. It seems rather square-peg-round-hole to force it with this release by using English-like renderings of Chinese words to force compliance with a requirement that wasn’t fully thought out. So since the requirements assume the English alphabet, which doesn’t fit well with Chinese, what about suspending the requirements for geographic relevance, and instead select English words beginning with “U” that have some relevance to Shanghai. I don’t have any ideas along these lines; just pointing out that blind adherence to a poor rule will usually produce poor results. -- Ed Leafe

On 8/13/19 4:57 PM, James E. Blair wrote:

[...] Since we take particular pride in our community participation, the fact that we have not been able or willing to do this correctly reflects very poorly on us. I would rather that we not do this at all than do it badly, so I think this should be the last release with a name. I've proposed that change here:

https://review.opendev.org/675788

The names were fun initially - but sometimes a joke turns old, I agree, it's time to change the process. And giving up names is fine. But then we need another way to sequence. The U release is the 21th release, so let's use that as overall number (even if different projects have less than 20 releases). Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@suse.com Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

(Put my whatever hat on) Here's my suggestion, we can either make a patch to clarify the process step by step (no exception) or simply move everything out of https://governance.openstack.org/tc That actually leads to the current discussion here, to just use versions or not. Personally, I'm interested in improving the document and not that much interested in making only versions. I do like to see if we can use whatever alphabet we like so this version can be *cool*, and the next version can be *awesome*. Isn't that sounds cool and awesome? :) And like the idea Chris Dent propose to just use *U* or *V*, etc. to save us from having to have this discussion again(I'm actually the one to propose *U* in the list this time:) ) And if we're going to use any new naming system, I strongly suggest we should remove the *Geographic Region* constraint if we plan to have a poll. It's always easy to find conflict between what local people think about the name and what the entire community thinks about it. (Put my official hat on) And for the problem of *University* part: back in the proposal period, I find a way to add *University* back to the meet criteria list so hope people get to discuss whether or not it can be in the poll. And (regardless for the ongoing discussion about whether or not TC got any role to govern this process) I did turn to TCs and ask for the advice for the final answer (isn't that is the responsibility for TCs to guide?), so I guess we can say I'm the one to remove it out of the final list. Therefore I'm taking the responsibility to say I'm the one to omit *University*. During the process, we omitted Ujenn, Uanjou, Ui, Uanliing, Ueihae, Ueishan from the meet criteria list because they're not the most popular spelling system in China. And we omitted Urumqi from the meet criteria list because of the potential political issue. Those are before I was an official. And we should consider them all during discuss about *University* here. I guess we should define more about in which stage should the official propose the final list of all names that meet criteria should all automatically be part of the final list. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:29 AM Chris Dent <cdent+os@anticdent.org> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

But then we need another way to sequence. The U release is the 21th release, so let's use that as overall number (even if different projects have less than 20 releases).

How about "U"?

No tooling changes required. And then we get a couple years of not having to have this discussion again.

-- Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ https://anticdent.org/ freenode: cdent

-- May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, *Rico Lin*irc: ricolin

I do think the conversation about University could have been more clear. Specific yes/no answers and reasons would have been nice. Instead of a single decision about whether it was included, I received 3 decisions with 4 rationales from several different people. Either of the following would have been perfectly fine outcomes:

For transparency, I did not feel comfortable vetoing options, expressed that I don't think it's my business to be picking what's in and what's out. To me, the steps that come *after* the poll were the ones that decided which ones we ended up picking, that's why we have voting that lets you pick more than one option, so we can back down to second/third choices if need-be. I chose to cast a vote in the TC poll with all options tied equally. While having said that, I'm pretty disappointed of the state that we are currently in and I'm starting to lean towards simplifying the process of name selection for releases. However, I think it's probably way too late to make these type of changes. I feel partly responsible because I spent a significant amount of time trying to work with our Chinese community members (and OSF staff in China) to make sure that we get the name choices right, but it seems that has added too much delay and process in the system. In retrospective, this was hard from the start and I think we should have seen this coming much earlier, because the issue about no romanization that starts with "U" was brought up really early on but we didn't really take action on it. As much as I am disappointed in the outcome, I'd like us to turn it around and resolve this while everyone's interests are invested in it right now to avoid the same thing from happening again. It's clearly not the first time this has happened and this is a good time to rework that release naming document.

Jeremy Freudberg <jeremyfreudberg@gmail.com> writes:

- I did not see in the document about how to determine the geographic region (its size etc or who should determine it). This is an opportunity for confusion sometimes leading to bitterness (and it was in the case of U -- whole China versus near Shanghai).

That's a good question. The TC decides that before the process starts, along with setting the dates. It appears in the table at the end of: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html The process kicks off with a TC resolution commit like this: https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/commit/9219939fb153857ec5f53b986f86... Hopefully at that point everyone is on the same page. So at least once the process starts, there shouldn't be any question about the geographic area. Of course, this time, there were 3 more commits after that one changing various things, including the area. Ideally, we'd set a region and not change it. But to me, expanding a region is at least better than reducing it. So I don't fault the TC for making that change (and making it in a deliberative way). Specifying the region in advance was in fact a late addition to the process and document. We didn't get that right the first time. The first entry in that table (which now says "Tokyo"; this seems revisionist to me) used to say "N/A" because we did not specify a region in advance, and it caused problems. If we keep the document (I hope we don't), I agree that we should add more text explaining that. -Jim

Just some thoughts.

P.S.: Single letter (like "U", "V") doesn't work when we wrap the alphabet (as has already been observed), but something like "U21", "V22", ... "A27" seems to work fine.

If we can shift it by 2 to get a B-52's tribute release, I can get on board with that.

On 8/13/19 2:45 PM, Jeremy Freudberg wrote:

Even though I agree the process this time around was comedy of errors (or worse), I don't think switching to numeric releases is particularly wise... for example, more than once someone has reported an issue with Sahara and stated that they are using <some number> version of Sahara. Turns out that <some number> is actually the version of the OSA playbooks being used. Let's not add another number to get confused about into the mix.

We also use version numbers for our downstream OpenStack product, and I believe others do as well. It's kind of nice to know that if someone is talking about a numerical version they mean downstream, whereas a letter means upstream. Although I guess the other side of that is if upstream went to numbers downstream could just match those. It would be a little weird because we'd skip several major versions, but it could be done.

Anyway: - I think that now with you having pointed out everything that went wrong and having pointed us towards the simple steps that should be followed instead, we ought to give ourselves one more try to get the process correct for "V". We really should be able to get it right next time and there's something to be said for tradition. - I did not see in the document about how to determine the geographic region (its size etc or who should determine it). This is an opportunity for confusion sometimes leading to bitterness (and it was in the case of U -- whole China versus near Shanghai).

Just some thoughts.

P.S.: Single letter (like "U", "V") doesn't work when we wrap the alphabet (as has already been observed), but something like "U21", "V22", ... "A27" seems to work fine.

It doesn't solve the problem of tooling that assumes names will sort alphabetically though. I suppose we could go to ZA (all hail the mighty Za-Lord!*), ZB, etc., but that seems pretty hacky. I think we're ultimately going to have to make some changes to the tooling no matter what we decide now. * any Dresden Files fans here? ;-)

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:03 PM James E. Blair <corvus@inaugust.com> wrote:

...

Rico Lin <rico.lin.guanyu@gmail.com> writes:

...

(Put my whatever hat on) Here's my suggestion, we can either make a patch to clarify the process step by step (no exception) or simply move everything out of https://governance.openstack.org/tc That actually leads to the current discussion here, to just use versions or not. Personally, I'm interested in improving the document and not that much interested in making only versions. I do like to see if we can use whatever alphabet we like so this version can be *cool*, and the next version can be *awesome*. Isn't that sounds cool and awesome? :)

I'm happy to help improve it if that's what folks want. I already think it says what you and several other people want it to say. But I wrote it, and so the fact that people keep reading it and coming away with different understandings means I did a bad job. So I'll need help to figure out which parts I wasn't clear on.

But I'm serious about the suggestion to scrap names altogether. Every time we have an issue with this, it's because people start making their own judgments when the job of the coordinator is basically just to send some emails.

The process is 7 very clear steps. Many of them were definitely not followed this time. We can try to make it more clear, but we have done that before, and it still didn't prevent things from going wrong this time.

As a community, we just don't care enough to get it right, and getting it wrong only produces bad feelings and wastes all our time. I'm looking forward to OpenStack Release 22.

That sounds cool. That's a big number. Way bigger than like 1.x.

...

And like the idea Chris Dent propose to just use *U* or *V*, etc. to save us from having to have this discussion again(I'm actually the one to propose *U* in the list this time:) )

That would solve a lot of problems, and create one new one in a few years. :)

...

And if we're going to use any new naming system, I strongly suggest we should remove the *Geographic Region* constraint if we plan to have a poll. It's always easy to find conflict between what local people think about the name and what the entire community thinks about it.

We will have a very long list if we do that.

I'm not sure I agree with you about that problem though. In practice, deciding whether a river is within a state boundary is not that contentious. That's pretty much all that's ever been asked.

...

(Put my official hat on) And for the problem of *University* part: back in the proposal period, I find a way to add *University* back to the meet criteria list so hope people get to discuss whether or not it can be in the poll. And (regardless for the ongoing discussion about whether or not TC got any role to govern this process) I did turn to TCs and ask for the advice for the final answer (isn't that is the responsibility for TCs to guide?), so I guess we can say I'm the one to remove it out of the final list. Therefore I'm taking the responsibility to say I'm the one to omit *University*.

Thanks. I don't fault you personally for this, I think we got into this situation because no one wanted to do it and so a confusing set of people on the TC ended up performing various tasks ad-hoc. That you stepped up and took action and responsibility is commendable. You have my respect for that.

I do think the conversation about University could have been more clear. Specific yes/no answers and reasons would have been nice. Instead of a single decision about whether it was included, I received 3 decisions with 4 rationales from several different people. Either of the following would have been perfectly fine outcomes:

Me: Can has University, plz? Coordinator: Violates criterion 4 Me: But Pike Coordinator: Questionable, but process says be "generous" so, okay, it's in. or Coordinator: <Insert reason pike is invalid precedent>. Sorry, it's still out.

However, reasons around trademark or the suitability of English words are not appropriate reasons to exclude a name. Nor is "the TC didn't like it". There is only one reason to exclude a name, and that is that it violates one of the 4 criteria.

Of course it's fine to ask the TC, or anyone else for guidance. However, it's clear from the IRC log that many members of the TC did not appreciate what was being asked of them. It would be okay to ask them "Do you think this meets the criteria?" But instead, a long discussion about whether the names were *good choices* ensued. That's not one of the steps in the process. In fact, it's the exact thing that the process is supposed to avoid. No matter what the members of the TC thought about whether a name was a good idea, if it met the criteria it should be in.

...

During the process, we omitted Ujenn, Uanjou, Ui, Uanliing, Ueihae, Ueishan from the meet criteria list because they're not the most popular spelling system in China. And we omitted Urumqi from the meet criteria list because of the potential political issue. Those are before I was an official. And we should consider them all during discuss about *University* here. I guess we should define more about in which stage should the official propose the final list of all names that meet criteria should all automatically be part of the final list.

None of those should have been removed. They, even more so than University, clearly meet the criteria, and were only removed due to personal preference.

I want to be clear, there *is* a place for consideration of all of these things. That is step 3:

The marketing community may identify any names of particular concern from a marketing standpoint and discuss such issues publicly on the Marketing mailing list. The marketing community may produce a list of problematic items (with citations to the mailing list discussion of the rationale) to the election official. This information will be communicated during the election, but the names will not be removed from the poll.

That is where we would identify things like "this name uses an unusual romanization system" or "this name has political ramifications". We don't remove those names from the list, but we let the community know about the issues, so that when people vote, they have all the information.

We trust our community to make good (or hilariously bad) decisions.

That's what this all comes down to. The process as written is supposed to collect a lot of names, with a lot of information, and present them to our community and let us all decide together. That's what has been lost.

-Jim

On 2019-08-14 00:12:22 -0400 (-0400), Zane Bitter wrote: [...]

My understanding (which may be wrong because it all seems to have gone down within a day that I happened to be on vacation) of how we got into that state to begin with is that after Tony did a ton of work figuring out how to get a local name beginning with U, collected a bunch of names + feedback, and was basically ready to start the poll, the Foundation implied that they would veto all of the names on the grounds that their China expert didn't feel that using the GR transliteration would be appropriate because of reasons. [...]

(Sorry about the late reply, but I'm finally catching up on the thread after a week of nonstop in-person meetings.) I think this particular detail spun out of control and got unnecessarily exaggerated with the retelling, yet people believed the exaggeration and allowed it to unduly influence decisions. The *only* references I'm aware of to this consultation are: 1. In the #openstack-tc IRC channel, mnaser said, "I think it might be better to hold off on that a little bit. I have talked with Horace a bit regarding this and it doesn't seem like it might be setting us up for success. We're likely ending up in a position where we don't have much choice of names (and the usage of GR seemed to have some not-so-ideal background because of it's popularity in Taiwan and not being used in China)." <URL: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-... > 2. In the governance change to establish the original poll details, Mohammed Naser commented, "I've taken the time to discuss this with Horace (the OSF's China community manager) regarding the choice of name that we're about to have. They've shared a few concerns with me about the choice that we're making here and I think we should re-consider it before we actually make a decision to go with it. First of all, it seems that the GR romanization isn't exactly popular in Mainland China and it's actually quite more popular in regions outside of it (in Taiwan) for example. Therefore, it wouldn't probably be a great image of our community to do that for our Chinese contributors." https://review.opendev.org/666974 I interpreted neither of those as a statement that OSF would "veto" GR names, merely as a suggestion in support of broadening our regional criteria or choosing to allow exceptions so that we don't rely exclusively on GR-transliterated options in the final poll. I also questioned this second-hand assertion, as a week earlier in the same review, Eric Kao commented, "Gwoyeu Romatzyh is not in use in Taiwan, avoiding another possible sensitivity." There was no response to further explain the apparent contradiction there, and in retrospect I'm sorry I didn't push for further clarification on the matter. -- Jeremy Stanley