Open Stack

Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> writes:

> 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.

Egad, it was definitely not intended to be a power grab, quite the
opposite in fact (in my proposal, the TC is only granted the power to
exempt really cool names from the rules).  But since we're doing things
in the open now, we can fix it.  Considering that the process used to be
a poll of the ~openstack group on launchpad, it seemed like a fairly
straightforward mapping to ATCs.  I wanted to find the easiest way to
get the most people in the community likely to vote as possible without
needing to generate a new voting roll.  But you are correct: if we're
fixing this, let's fix it right.

The next best thing I can think of is to use the entire Foundation
Individual Membership to produce the roll for the CIVS poll.  It will be
a bit of extra work, but I believe that is about as broad of a
definition of our community that we use.

>> 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).

Sounds great!  I will revise my TC proposal.

-Jim