Open Stack

> On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 07/09/2015 09:19 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
>> In the hope of forestalling an unnecessary sub-thread...
>> 
>> Mita was #1 in the vote, so has presumably already been ruled out by
>> OpenStack's legal review.
> 
> That is correct.


Hi everyone,

I’ve really loved seeing everyone’s understanding and engagement on this thread as we worked through the release cycle naming for ‘M’. This was the first attempt to follow a new process, so not surprisingly, we found some improvements in the algorithm for the future. Still it’s awesome to see how constructive and positive the whole conversation has been.

I wanted to provide a quick update on the status of the Foundation’s reviews of the names. First, as Russell mentioned above, after the voting was completed, we asked our trademark counsel to do checks on the top 3 names. The first two both had significant trademark issues with existing trademark holders in the same space that would have prevented us from using the names in most jurisdictions where we have our largest communities (US, Europe and Asia). The 3rd choice was relatively low risk and so we passed word back to Monty who announced it. Once we realized there were other issues with Meiji, we asked for an expedited check of the next 3 names: Mitaka, Musashi, and Meguro. The preliminary check shows that Mitaka and Meguro both present an acceptable level of risk, while Musashi is higher on the risk scale and would probably create problems for usage.

At this time, we’re going to do a deeper check on Mitaka, which was the #4 candidate in voting and would be next in line after Meiji. I know Itoh-san mentioned the Mitaka locale has the potential to be associated with certain corporations in Japan, but my personal feeling is that may not be significant enough to override it’s position in the voting and it’s availability for use.

I’d encourage anyone with other concerns about Mitaka to post those within the next 24 hours so we can appropriately consider and discuss them. We should have results on the deeper trademark check by next week as well and can hopefully settle on a final name.

Thanks again for all the discussion and participation and especially to Monty who’s been on the front lines of helping us navigate this. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions,

Jonathan
210-317-2438