Open Stack

Hi,

I'd like to apologize to all of the people who worked hard on
researching and proposing names for the M release that did not appear in
the poll.

When we worked on the new method for choosing a name, we did so with the
idea that the entire process should be public and that the community is
equipped to make good choices about names in the poll itself; options do
not need to be pre-filtered.  That's why nominations happen on the wiki,
we use condorcet voting, and there is very little discretion in the
process for adding or removing names.

With that in mind, as well as our predilection for stretching the bounds
of the naming criteria to find interesting names, I intentionally left
specification of the geographical boundaries vague.  The discussion up
to that point had included the phrase "at least related to the
location," so I felt that a generally inclusive approach would work, and
if we ended up with 10, 20, or 50 names on the poll, I was certain that
we would be able to handle it.

I, and as evidenced by the entries on the nomination page, many others,
believed that in this case the country of Japan was a suitable enclosing
region for the names.  In area, it is smaller than both Texas and
California -- regions we have previously used with some success.  At any
rate, it is a reasonable belief, but that is now beside the point.

After completing the nomination period with names helpfully categorized
according to whether people believed they met or did not meet the
criteria, and after the TC discussed the list and some members noted
with approval the large number of conforming names, a choice was made in
private to reduce the geographical region to Tokyo itself.

This is also a reasonable choice, and my issue is not with it, but with
the way it was made: privately, without input from the community, and
after the nominations had closed.  It may have been with the best
intentions, but it was very unfair to the people who worked hard
preparing the 24 names that were removed from consideration.

I wrote the intentionally vague language that resulted in this
misunderstanding, and I apologize for it.  I will propose a
clarification to the naming process intended to avoid this kind of
confusion in the future.

-Jim