Open Stack

On 07/09/2015 07:16 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> It seems we have a golden opportunity here to improve efficiency by vetting
> names before we vote on them.

The vetting from the crowd was intended to happen on the wikipage. I'm
not sure how much vetting did take place but obviously not enough to
give us a list of names that the community felt comfortable with.

Hopefully subsequent rounds will show community members stepping forward
more vocally than they did this round.

Also as I think ttx pointed out, culturally those with the most
knowledge of the significance of these names behave in a way that trusts
the judgment of the decision makers. Unfortunately the decision makers
in this case lacked the culture information the community members have.
It is a learning experience all round.

Legally vetting all the names suggested on the wikipage would be
expensive I do believe, if that is what you are suggesting by vetting.

> Seems that voting for a bunch of names then
> eliminating all of the top votes because they won't work doesn't strike me
> as very efficient (i.e. why vote on names that MIGHT be valid).

Well sometimes groups aren't very efficient, mostly since they are
composed of humans and humans have opportunities to learn from each
other. This process is rarely a straight line from A to B. (Personally I
picture lots of spirograph images.)

Thanks,
Anita.

> 
> The alternative of course is to just number the releases since names
> ultimately don't mean anything but it seems there are problems with that
> level of simplicity. I personally prefer Tristan's suggestion to keep it as
> simple as possible. In a few years we'll run out of letters anyway.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> 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, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Feel free to give input on the Mitaka proposal.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan Bryce [mailto:jbryce at jbryce.com]
>>> Sent: 09 July 2015 20:52
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] Rescinding the M name decision
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________
>>> ________________
>>> 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-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>