Hi Anne; this was more or less directed in Monty's direction and/or those in agreement with his position. Sorry for the confusion, I probably should have been a bit more clear. ; )
Mahalo, 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, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> wrote: > On 01/28/2015 07:24 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: > > I'm short on time so I apologize for my candor since I need to get > straight > > to the point. > > > > I love reading the various opinions and my team is immensely excited with > > OpenStack is maturing. But this is lunacy. > > > > I looked at the patch being worked [1] to change how things are done and > > have more questions than I can count. > > > > So I'll start with the obvious ones: > > > > - Are you proposing this change as a Foundation Individual Board > > Director tasked with representing the interests of all Individual > Members > > of the OpenStack community or as a member of the TC? Context matters > > because your two hats are presenting a conflict of interest in my > opinion. > > One cannot propose a change that gives them greater influence while > > suggesting they're doing it for everyone's benefit. > How can Jim be proposing a change as a Foundation Individual Board > Director? He isn't a member of the Board. > > http://www.openstack.org/foundation/board-of-directors/ > > He is a member of the Technical Committee. > > http://www.openstack.org/foundation/tech-committee/ > > Keep in mind that the repository that he offered the change to, the > openstack/governance repository, welcomes patches from anyone who takes > the time to learn our developer workflow and offers a patch to the > repository using Gerrit. > > http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html > > Thanks, > Anita. > > - How is "fun" remotely relevant when discussing process improvement? > > I'm really hoping we aren't developing processes based on how fun a > process > > is or isn't. > > - Why is this discussion being limited to the development community > > only? Where's the openness in that? > > - What exactly is the problem we're attempting to fix? > > - Does the current process not work? > > - Is there group of individuals being disenfranchised with our current > > process somehow that suggests the process should limit participation > > differently? > > > > And some questions around the participation proposals: > > > > - Why is the election process change proposing to limit participation > to > > ATC members only? > > There are numerous enthusiasts within our community that don't fall > > within the ATC category such as marketing (as some have brought up), > > corporate sponsors (where I live) and I'm sure there are many more. > > - Is taking back the process a hint that the current process is being > > mishandled or restores a sense of process control? > > - Is the presumption that the election process belongs to someone or > > some group? > > That strikes me as an incredibly subjective assertion to make. > > > > <opinion>This is one reason I feel so strongly folks should not be > allowed > > to hold more than one position of leadership within the OpenStack > project. > > Obfuscated context coupled with increased influence rarely produces > > excellence on either front. But that's me.</opinion> > > > > Mahalo, > > Adam > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150604/ > > > > > > *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 Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> > wrote: > > > >> On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >>> Monty Taylor wrote: > >>>> What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: > >>>> > >>>> - Anyone can propose a name > >>>> - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria > >>>> - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of > effort > >>> > >>> Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. > >>> For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because > >>> there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to > >>> be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. > >> Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship. > >>> > >>>> - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names > >>>> they find image-wise problematic > >>>> - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members > >>>> containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly > >>>> labeled, like this: > >>>> > >>>> * Love > >>>> * Lumber > >> Ohh, it gives me a thrill to see a name that means something even > >> remotely Canadian. (not advocating it be added to this round) > >>>> * Lettuce > >>>> * Lemming - marketing issues identified > >>>> > >>>> - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in > >>>> order until a legally acceptable winner is found > >>>> > >>>> This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as > >>>> transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges > needed > >>>> for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. > >>>> > >>>> I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a > >>>> launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for > post-vote > >>>> trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off > >>>> of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection) > >>> > >>> It's been some time since we last used a Launchpad poll. I recently > used > >>> an open surveymonkey poll, which allowed crude ranking. Agree that > >>> Condorcet is better, as long as you can determine a clear list of > voters. > >>> > >> > >> Glad we are talking about this, > >> Anita. > >> > >> > __________________________________________________________________________ > >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
