Open Stack

On 01/28/2015 07:24 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> 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 can Jim be proposing a change as a Foundation Individual Board
Director? He isn't a member of the Board.

http://www.openstack.org/foundation/board-of-directors/

He is a member of the Technical Committee.

http://www.openstack.org/foundation/tech-committee/

Keep in mind that the repository that he offered the change to, the
openstack/governance repository, welcomes patches from anyone who takes
the time to learn our developer workflow and offers a patch to the
repository using Gerrit.

http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html

Thanks,
Anita.
>    - 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
>    differently?
> 
> 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>
> 
> Mahalo,
> Adam
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/
> 
> 
> *Adam Lawson*
> 
> AQORN, Inc.
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>