Open Stack

On 2015-07-09 18:04:49 -0700 (-0700), Adam Lawson wrote:
> Yes I'm talking about vetting by legal since the community already
> vets via the usual process. Legal has stricter guidelines so we
> could start future vetting with legal to remove the options we
> can't use even if we wanted to. That's where the inefficiency lies
> imho. The issue with this particular snafu is kind of an
> exceptional case.

That's basically how we ended up with the new process we tried this
time. Previous cycles people expressed concerns that the names they
came up with were pared down in private by some mysterious
force--lawyers--who decided what was left for them to rank (after
the TC scaled down the list to few enough that it wouldn't take
legal forever to research them all). For the M cycle name we tried
to let the community rank the choices first and then have the
lawyers vet them in community preferred order instead. You're
basically arguing in favor of the old process people were
complaining about.

This is a great example of "you can't make everyone happy."
-- 
Jeremy Stanley