Open Stack

On 01/29/2015 11:56 AM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> 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
Okay, thanks Adam.

My name is Anita.

Thanks,
Anita.
> 
> 
> *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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>