Open Stack

Hi Anne; this was more or less directed in Monty's direction and/or those
in agreement with his position. Sorry for the confusion, I probably should
have been a bit more clear. ; )

Mahalo,
Adam


*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 Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150129/7679a33d/attachment-0001.html>