Open Stack

Monty Taylor wrote:
> You'll notice that I did say in my suggestion that ANYONE should be able
> to propose a name - I believe that would include non-dev people. Since
> the people in question are marketing people, I would imagine that if any
> of them feel strongly about a name, that it should be trivial for them
> to make their case in a persuasive way.

The proposal as it stands (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/4)
currently excludes all non-ATCs from voting, though. The wider
"community" was included in previous iterations of the naming process,
so this very much feels like a TC power grab.

> I'm not willing to cede that choosing the name is by definition a
> marketing activity - and in fact the sense that such a position was
> developing is precisely why I think it's time to get this sorted. I
> think the dev community feels quite a bit of ownership on this topic and
> I would like to keep it that way.

It's not by definition a technical activity either, so we are walking a
thin line. Like I commented on the review: I think the TC can retain
ownership of this process and keep the last bits of fun that were still
in it[1], as long as we find a way to keep non-ATCs in the naming
process, and take into account the problematic names raised by the
marketing community team (which will use those names as much as the
technical community does).

[1] FWIW, it's been a long time since I last considered the naming
process as "fun". It's not been fun for me at all to handle this process
recently and take hits from all sides (I receive more hatemail about
this process than you would think). As we formalize and clarify this
process, I would be glad to transfer the naming process to some
TC-nominated election official. I consider all this "taking back the
naming process" effort as a personal reflection on my inability to
preserve the neutrality of the process. It used to be fun, yes, when I
would throw random names on a whiteboard and get the room to pick. It no
longer is.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)