On 01/29/2015 11:56 AM, Adam Lawson wrote: > 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 Okay, thanks Adam.
My name is Anita. Thanks, Anita. > > > *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 > __________________________________________________________________________ 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
