[openstack-tc] J naming poll
Mark Collier
mark at openstack.org
Thu Dec 12 17:04:02 UTC 2013
How about we ask all foundation members to vote. We could send a unique link to each, I believe.
I like the idea of a broader set of input, including from users who may not be atcs, on what we name the thing they'll be using. A small but fun way to participate.
On Dec 12, 2013 10:51 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/12/2013 04:40 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org
> > <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi fellow members of the TC,
> >
> > We now have a set of 10 potential names for the J release [1], and need
> > to pick the best method to select the winner. Historically we held a
> > Launchpad poll (~openstack group) over a refined set of 4-5 options. The
> > problem is, we don't really use the Launchpad ~openstack group anymore
> > (used to be the subscribers to the openstack ML) and the group was
> > therefore closed... so that's no longer the "less worse" option.
> >
> > A few proposed solutions:
> >
> > 1. "Public" CIVS vote, accessible to everyone with the link
> > Easy to set up, but vote is limited to one per IP address, which can
> > block legitimate voters while encouraging ballot stuffing.
> >
> > 2a. Private CIVS vote, link sent to openstack-dev subscribers
> > A bit painful to set up (need to extract the 2926 subscribers emails,
> > then feed them to CIVS by batches of less than 1000), but at least it's
> > not gameable. One difference is that receiving a private vote email will
> > result in more participation than the only-announced-on-ML Launchpad
> > poll.
> >
> > 2b. Private CIVS vote, link sent to openstack list subscribers
> > More painful to set up (8573 members), and CIVS advises against being
> > used to run above "a couple thousands voters". That said it's probably
> > the closest to the people who voted in the past (general list).
> >
> > 3. Launchpad poll over ~openstack
> > The OpenStack group is still there, so technically we could still refine
> > the list to 4-5 candidates and set up a poll there. It's not as good as
> > Condorcet though, and would be more like "the people who used to vote in
> > previous names" than "the people who should vote now".
> >
> > 4a. Screw popular voting, let's do a TC members condorcet
> > Easy option. Might be seen as TC power landgrab, and it was funny to let
> > the "people" decide.
> >
> > 4b. Screw voting, let's pick Jekyll and be done with it
> > A variant of the previous option in case of consensus.
> >
> > I'm open to other suggestions :)
> >
> >
> > It seems like part of the problem is with the tooling. Do we need this
> > vote to be as secure as PTL or TC elections? Would a tool like survey
> > monkey be easier to work with for this case?
>
> I like public CIVS poll - option 1. I don't think this needs to be super
> secure - and although I think people will vote, I don't think people
> will care _enough_ to ballot stuff.
>
> That said, if that freaks people out, what about ATC CIVS poll? We have
> scripts already to make those lists. Everyone seems to understand that
> the ATCs are the ones with voting rights on things over here in
> technical land.
>
> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNaming
> >
> > --
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-TC mailing list
> > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> > <mailto:OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org>
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-TC mailing list
> > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-TC mailing list
> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
More information about the OpenStack-TC
mailing list