Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anita Kuno [mailto:anteaya at anteaya.info]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:48 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] naming N and O releases nowish
> 
> On 10/07/2015 06:22 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > On 10/07/2015 09:24 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2015 08:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>> Sean Dague wrote:
> >>>> We're starting to make plans for the next cycle. Long term plans
> are
> >>>> getting made for details that would happen in one or two cycles.
> >>>>
> >>>> As we already have the locations for the N and O summits I think
> we
> >>>> should do the naming polls now and have names we can use for this
> >>>> planning instead of letters. It's pretty minor but it doesn't seem
> like
> >>>> there is any real reason to wait and have everyone come up with
> working
> >>>> names that turn out to be confusing later.
> >>>
> >>> That sounds fair. However the release naming process currently
> >>> states[1]:
> >>>
> >>> """
> >>> The process to chose the name for a release begins once the
> location of
> >>> the design summit of the release to be named is announced and no
> sooner
> >>> than the opening of development of the previous release.
> >>> """
> >>>
> >>> ...which if I read it correctly means we could pick N now, but not
> O. We
> >>> might want to change that (again) first.
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/release-naming.html
> >>
> >> Right, it seems like we should change it so that we can do naming as
> >> soon as the location is announced.
> >>
> >> For projects like Nova that are trying to plan things more than one
> >> cycle out, having those names to hang those features on is massively
> >> useful (as danpb also stated). Delaying for bureaucratic reasons
> just
> >> seems silly. :)
> >
> > So, for what it's worth, I remember discussing this when we discussed
> > the current process, and the change you are proposing was one of the
> > options put forward when we talked about it.
> >
> > The reason for not doing all of them as soon as we know them was to
> keep
> > a sense of ownership by the people who are actually working on the
> > thing. Barcelona is a long way away and we'll all likely have rage
> quit
> > by then, leaving the electorate for the name largely disjoint from
> the
> > people working on the release.
> >
> > Now, I hear you - and I'm not arguing that position. (In fact, I
> believe
> > my original thought was in line with what you said here) BUT - I
> mostly
> > want to point out that we have had this discussion, the discussion
> was
> > not too long ago, it covered this point, and I sort of feel like if
> we
> > have another discussion on naming process people might kill us with
> > pitchforks.
> 
> You are assuming that not having this conversation might shield you
> from
> the pitchforks.
 
I, myself favor war hammers (very useful tool for separating plaster from lathe), but if we all rage quit, the new guard can always change the name as a middle finger salute to the old guard.  Let's be daring!  Let's name O, too!

--Rocky

> Anita.
> 
> >
> > Monty
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> ___
> > 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