[openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process

Morgan Fainberg morgan.fainberg at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 16:52:54 UTC 2015

I just want to toss in a quick 2 cents on the topic. It is important for everyone to feel involved in the naming of our releases. It is part of who we are. No one (including marketing) should be excluded from the discussion. I see a lot of good feedback here and it should be fun again! Making it a marketing exercise or a technical exercise or anything else is “not fun”. However we change this, it should be inclusive. If there is clearly a bad choice (Hey, I like lemmings! I’m with Jim on this one, not that I’d say we need to call the release “lemming”), it’s fine to exclude it from the list with a reason. I strongly believe that some other well-known projects that use named-releases have dodged this by using 2-words - of which everyone usually only uses the first to speak about it. 

The spirit of this conversation should be exactly what it is at face value (and how I viewed it): Make naming the release fun for the community (including ATCs, Corporate sponsors [yes they often have fun too!], Marketing folks, etc).


> On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2015 01:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> 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).
> Agree. I actually don't think it's strictly important for the TC to
> "own" this as much as I don't want the technical folks excluded. What
> if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical:
> - Anyone can propose a name
> - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria
> -  * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort
> - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names
> they find image-wise problematic
> - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members
> containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly
> labeled, like this:
> * Love
> * Lumber
> * Lettuce
> * Lemming - marketing issues identified
> - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in
> order until a legally acceptable winner is found
> This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as
> transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed
> for anyone to volunteer to be an election official.
> I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a
> launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote
> trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off
> of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection)
> That said - having a script that the foundation staff can use to
> generate a condorcet vote from the foundation membership rolls seems
> like a generally useful thing to have. Since I'm causing trouble, I'd be
> happy to help write it.
>> [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.
> I think that in and of itself is a good reason to have a better process.
> Anything we do can get contentious - and anything we do that adds to
> stress or strain on you should be replaced by something that does not
> add stress or strain. One of the nice things about a fully mechanical
> voting process is that there is nobody that should receive hate-mail.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150128/b6552913/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list