osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[all][tc] U Cycle Naming Poll


IMO, it's good to release the whole thing out of TC's responsibility, and
do hope we can do these in an automatic way, so like people can just raise
whatever cool name it's and see if that pass a CI job. :)

As long as the whole naming process is still under TC's governance and
words like *the process should consider potential issues of trademark*
still in [1] (which I think we should specific put down as a more formal
rule, or remove it out of that docs), I believe TCs still need to confirm
the final list. And that's why I'm the one asking TCs to put their final
confirm with it through the inner TC poll during office hour. Maybe the
process will change though all these discussions and patches you proposed
on governance repo (kind of hope it will, at least we should improve the
docs to make more clear info. for all), but as long as the inner TC poll
result does not turn over, I will respect the result, and hope that's good
enough reason to call that list is final.
This discussion definitely worth to keep developing, but as I promised for
postponing 24 hours from yesterday, it's time to bring the public poll up.

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:22 AM James E. Blair <corvus at inaugust.com> wrote:

> Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> writes:
>
> > To be clear, the thing that stopped us from automatically including it
> > was that there was no consensus that it met the criteria, which
> > exclude words that describe a general class of Geographic feature. I
> > regret that you didn't get an opportunity to discuss this; I initially
> > raised it in response to you and I both being pinged[1], but we
> > probably should have tried to ping you again when discussions resumed
> > during office hours the next day. FWIW I never thought that Pike
> > should have been automatically included either, but nobody asked me at
> > the time ;)
>
> Thanks, I suppose it's better late than never to have this discussion.
>
> Happily, the process does not require that the TC come to a consensus on
> whether a name fits the criteria.  In establishing the process, this was
> a deliberate decision to avoid the TC having exactly that kind of
> discussion because we all have better things to be doing.  That is why
> this is the sole purview of the election official.
>
> We should remember that the purpose of this process is to collect as
> many names as possible, weeding out only the obvious non-conforming
> candidates, so that the whole community may decide on the name.
>
> As I understand it, the sequence of events that led us here was:
>
> A) Doug (as interim unofficial election official) removed the name for
>    unspecified reasons. [1]
>
> B) I objected to the removal.  This is in accordance with step 5 of the
>    process:
>
>      Once the list is finalized and publicized, a one-week period shall
>      elapse before the start of the election so that any names removed
>      from consideration because they did not meet the Release Name
>      Criteria may be discussed. Names erroneously removed may be
>      re-added during this period, and the Technical Committee may vote
>      to add exceptional names (which do not meet the standard criteria).
>
> C) Rico (the election official at the time) agreed with my reasoning
>    that it was erroneously removed and re-added the name. [2]
>
> D) The list was re-issued and the name was once again missing.  Four
>    reasons were cited, three of which have no place being considered
>    prior to voting, and the fourth is a claim that it does not meet the
>    criteria.
>
> Aside from no explanation being given for (A) (and assuming that the
> explanation, if offered, would have been that the name does not meet the
> criteria) the events A through C are fairly in accordance with the
> documented process.
>
> I believe the following:
>
> * It was incorrect for the name to have been removed in the first place
>   (but that's fine, it's an appeal-able decision and I have appealed
>   it).
>
> * It was correct for Rico to re-add the name.  There are several reasons
>   for this:
>
>   * Points 1 and 2 of the Release Name Criteria are not at issue.
>
>   * The name refers to the human geography of the area around the summit
>     (it is a name of a place you can find on the map), and so satisfies
>     point 3.
>
>   * I believe that point 4, which it has been recently asserted the name
>     does not satisfy, was not intended to exclude names which describe
>     features.  It was a point of clarification that should a feature
>     have a descriptive term, it should not be included, for the sake of
>     brevity.  Point 4 begins with the length limitation, and therefore
>     should be considered as a discussion primarily of length.  It
>     states:
>
>       The name must be a single word with a maximum of 10 characters.
>       Words that describe the feature should not be included, so "Foo
>       City" or "Foo Peak" would both be eligible as "Foo".
>
>     Note that the examples in the text are "Foo City" and "Foo Peak" for
>     "Foo".  Obviously, that example would be for the "F" release where
>     "City" and "Peak" would not be candidates.  Therefore, point 4 is
>     effectively silent on whether words like "City" and "Peak" would be
>     permitted for the "C" and "P" releases.
>
>   * The name "Pike" was accepted as meeting the criteria.  It is short
>     for "Massachusetts Turnpike".  It serves the same function as a
>     descriptive name and serves and precedent.
>
>   * I will absolutely agree that point 4 could provide more clarity on
>     this and therefore a subjective evaluation must be made.  On this
>     point, we should refer to step 4 of the Release Naming Process:
>
>       In general, the official should strive to make objective
>       determinations as to whether a name meets the Release Name
>       Criteria, but if subjective evaluation is required, should be
>       generous in interpreting the rules. It is not necessary to reduce
>       the list of proposed names to a small number.
>
>     This indicates again that Rico was correct to accept the name,
>     because of the "generous interpretation" clause.  The ambiguity in
>     point 4 combined with the precedent set by Pike is certainly
>     sufficient reason to be "generous".
>
> * While the election official is free to consult with whomever they
>   wish, including the rest of the TC, there is no formal role for the TC
>   in reducing the names before voting begins (in fact, the process
>   clearly indicates that is an anti-goal).  So after Rico re-added the
>   name, it was not necessary to further review or reverse the decision.
>
> I appreciate that the TC proactively considered the name under the
> "really cool" exception, even though I had not requested it (deeming it
> to be unnecessary).  Thank you for that.
>
> Given the above reasoning, I hope that I have made a compelling case
> that the name meets the criteria (or at least, warrants "generous
> interpretation") and would appreciate it if the name were added back to
> the poll.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
> [1]
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-08-08.log.html#t2019-08-08T15:02:46
> [2]
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-August/008334.html
>
>

-- 
May The Force of OpenStack Be With You,

*Rico Lin*irc: ricolin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190813/fa76a2f3/attachment.html>