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.
That's fine. But I also think baking in an assumption that everyone will
rage quit in 2 cycles, so we shouldn't name it, seems massively
pessimistic.
I'll admit that I tuned out a bit in the last conversation because most
of the things people were arguing passionately about were things I felt
ambivalent towards. The thing I mostly care about is getting labels on
things past the next quarter so that we can reinforce that planning for
OpenStack projects isn't just about the next release, but includes big
efforts that span multiple releases.
Ok, I guess I'll propose the change, and that we start these activities
soon for the next TC meeting. And whoever the next TC class is can
address it.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
__________________________________________________________________________
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
