Open Stack

> On Jan 27, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
> 
> I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now.
> The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the
> exact opposite of what a community selected name should be.

Autocratic? Could you elaborate?


> I propose:
> 
> * As soon as development starts on release X, we open the voting for the
> name of release X+1 (we're working on Kilo now, we should have known the
> name of L at the K summit)
> 
> * Anyone can nominate a name - although we do suggest that something at
> least related to the location of the associated summit would be nice
> 
> * We condorcet vote on the entire list of nominated names
> 
> * After we have the winning list, the foundation trademark checks the name
> 
> * If there is a trademark issue (and only a trademark issue - not a
> "marketing doesn't like the name" issue) we'll move down to the next
> name on the list
> 
> If we cannot have this process be completely open and democratic, then
> what the heck is the point of having our massive meritocracy in the
> first place? There's a lot of overhead we deal with by being a
> leaderless collective you know - we should occasionally get to have fun
> with it.


If your goal is to actually involve our massive meritocracy, I’d suggest expanding this thread to include at least the community marketing mailing list rather than just the -dev mailing list (possibly also the Foundation mailing list?). The release names are some of our most prominent brands, meaning choosing them is by definition a marketing activity. Not including the part of our meritocracy with experience in branding and marketing feels counterintuitive to me (again if the goal is actually to be meritocratic).

Jonathan