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

Adam Lawson alawson at aqorn.com
Thu Jan 29 01:24:11 UTC 2015

I'm short on time so I apologize for my candor since I need to get straight
to the point.

I love reading the various opinions and my team is immensely excited with
OpenStack is maturing. But this is lunacy.

I looked at the patch being worked [1] to change how things are done and
have more questions than I can count.

So I'll start with the obvious ones:

   - Are you proposing this change as a Foundation Individual Board
   Director tasked with representing the interests of all Individual Members
   of the OpenStack community or as a member of the TC? Context matters
   because your two hats are presenting a conflict of interest in my opinion.
   One cannot propose a change that gives them greater influence while
   suggesting they're doing it for everyone's benefit.
   - How is "fun" remotely relevant when discussing process improvement?
   I'm really hoping we aren't developing processes based on how fun a process
   is or isn't.
   - Why is this discussion being limited to the development community
   only? Where's the openness in that?
   - What exactly is the problem we're attempting to fix?
   - Does the current process not work?
   - Is there group of individuals being disenfranchised with our current
   process somehow that suggests the process should limit participation

And some questions around the participation proposals:

   - Why is the election process change proposing to limit participation to
   ATC members only?
   There are numerous enthusiasts within our community that don't fall
   within the ATC category such as marketing (as some have brought up),
   corporate sponsors (where I live) and I'm sure there are many more.
   - Is taking back the process a hint that the current process is being
   mishandled or restores a sense of process control?
   - Is the presumption that the election process belongs to someone or
   some group?
   That strikes me as an incredibly subjective assertion to make.

<opinion>This is one reason I feel so strongly folks should not be allowed
to hold more than one position of leadership within the OpenStack project.
Obfuscated context coupled with increased influence rarely produces
excellence on either front. But that's me.</opinion>


[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/

*Adam Lawson*

427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info> wrote:

> On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Monty Taylor wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you.
> > For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because
> > there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to
> > be pretty detailed to be entirely objective.
> Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship.
> >
> >> - 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
> Ohh, it gives me a thrill to see a name that means something even
> remotely Canadian. (not advocating it be added to this round)
> >> * 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)
> >
> > It's been some time since we last used a Launchpad poll. I recently used
> > an open surveymonkey poll, which allowed crude ranking. Agree that
> > Condorcet is better, as long as you can determine a clear list of voters.
> >
> Glad we are talking about this,
> Anita.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150128/3b06e5be/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list