Hi Sean, Thanks for taking care of this entire process. Personally, I recall selecting "Xanadu" as my first option, picking 2 others (which I *honestly* don't remember, to be honest) and leaving the rest ranked 30 equally. Thanks Mohammed On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:57 AM Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmx.com> wrote:

Hey everyone,

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.

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.

This is a bit of a mea culpa from me about an issue with how this was conducted though. The naming process specifically states: "the poll should be run in a manner that allows members of the community to see what each TC member voted for." 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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks!

Sean

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#release-na... [2] https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_7e6e96070af39fe7

-- Mohammed Naser VEXXHOST, Inc.

Sean, I echo the other TC members in thanks for you leading up this process and doing it with transparency! I voted for three top options, I believe, leaving the rest ranked as 30th.  I believe they were:     1.  Xenoblast     2.  Xenomorph     3.  Xenith Why not Xanadu from me, people may ask?  Well, honestly, because I didn't want the song stuck in my head for 6 months. Thanks! Jay On 12/10/2020 10:53 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:

Hey everyone,

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.

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.

This is a bit of a mea culpa from me about an issue with how this was conducted though. The naming process specifically states: "the poll should be run in a manner that allows members of the community to see what each TC member voted for." 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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks!

Sean

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#release-na... [2] https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_7e6e96070af39fe7

On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 10:53 -0600, Sean McGinnis wrote:

Hey everyone,

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.

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.

wait i tough that we still had a comuntiy poll where every one could vote on the name is that coming next? i was waitign for a vote link. i was assumign i had missed it as i have and issue with not reciving vote link in the past for tc votes or ptl elections that is partly due to the fact that i dont think the curernt process looks at all the emales on my account and since i submit code with a different email then the first one listed it does not track that properly eventhough the one i use for code is in the alternative emails. in anycase i tought there was still a comuntiy poll afgter the inital list is narrowed down. delegatign this to the TC feels like a regression from what we previously did.

The vetting of the top choices from that process is happening now, and we should have a official result soon.

This is a bit of a mea culpa from me about an issue with how this was conducted though. The naming process specifically states: "the poll should be run in a manner that allows members of the community to see what each TC member voted for." 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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks!

Sean

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#release-na... [2] https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_7e6e96070af39fe7