|Thierry Carrez||Jul 3, 2012 3:20 pm|
|Brian Waldon||Jul 3, 2012 4:49 pm|
|Paul McMillan||Jul 3, 2012 5:05 pm|
|Nathanael Burton||Jul 3, 2012 5:07 pm|
|Gabriel Hurley||Jul 3, 2012 5:09 pm|
|Monty Taylor||Jul 3, 2012 5:21 pm|
|Brian Waldon||Jul 3, 2012 5:28 pm|
|James E. Blair||Jul 3, 2012 5:32 pm||.jpg|
|Monty Taylor||Jul 3, 2012 5:48 pm|
|Mark Collier||Jul 3, 2012 5:51 pm|
|Monty Taylor||Jul 3, 2012 6:25 pm|
|Dan Wendlandt||Jul 3, 2012 6:31 pm|
|Matt Joyce||Jul 3, 2012 7:08 pm|
|Razique Mahroua||Jul 4, 2012 12:28 am||.jpg|
|Thierry Carrez||Jul 4, 2012 12:56 am|
|Thierry Carrez||Jul 4, 2012 1:02 am|
|Daniel P. Berrange||Jul 4, 2012 1:41 am|
|Christopher B Ferris||Jul 5, 2012 3:41 am|
|Andrew Hutchings||Jul 5, 2012 3:50 am|
|Mark Collier||Jul 5, 2012 3:51 am|
|Thierry Carrez||Jul 5, 2012 4:19 am|
|Atul Jha||Jul 5, 2012 5:30 am|
|Subject:||Re: [Openstack] OpenStack "G" naming poll|
|From:||Monty Taylor (mord...@inaugust.com)|
|Date:||Jul 3, 2012 5:48:41 pm|
On 07/03/2012 07:29 PM, Brian Waldon wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 5:21 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
tl;dr - Screw the rules, I agree
Let's at least add it to the poll.
Also - I think we should further amend the rules such that we select the NEXT release by the summit for the current release. That means two things:
At the g summit, we'd tell everyone where the next summit is: At the g summit, we'd vote and announce the name of h We wouldn't have to spend half the cycle saying "h, or whatever" when we mean "we're going to defer that crazy idea until next time" I wouldn't have had to use the letter g by itself twice just above here.
I haven't been involved in choosing the next location, so I'm not sure how hard
it would be to choose it that far in advance. Maybe somebody can comment on how
doable this is?
I actually think it's HARDER to not choose it that far in advance, because the longer you wait, the more places are booked already. Although it's not exactly the same - linux conf australia always announces the location of the next conference at the current conference - and those are yearly. Also, they have a rotating set of host teams... so basically a team from a town puts in a proposal to linux.au saying "we'd like to host the next one, here's what we're going to do, here's where we're going to have it, blah blah blah" - and then one of them gets selected, and then they're the poor sods that have to actually run the darned thing.
So to stick my nose WAY in where it doesn't belong, once we have the foundation - what if we move to a model of having folks propose that they'd like to host the design summit? We can make a CFP-style deadline, and people can all pitch their location, and one can get chosen and announced by Thierry at a closing session or whatnot. That way if I wanted to get together with some other folks and say "hey guys, I've got 10 rooms that NYU has donated, and I'll provide these facilities" - then great, or if mercado libre wanted to say "zomg - we totally going to bring you all to the Shearton WTC in Sao Paulo" - or NTT was all "dude, we've got a thousand rooms in the middle of Tokyo" or Rackspace went "I don't know if anybody noticed, but we bought a shopping mall a few years ago and it's got conference rooms" ... the folks can sit in a room, look at the proposals, say things like "wow, I really don't want to sit in the castle all week when I sit there all week anyway - but drinking with Monty in the Lower East Side at a bar that has freezer they'll lock you in with a bottle of vodka sounds like a great way to plan the Houston release" (that's how-ston for all you Texans) -- it would almost be like distributed development with code review.
Of course, if that flys I guess I'm going to have to figure out how to take everyone to Mehanata...