Mailing List Archive

On 12/14/2020 4:20 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:
> Hello!
>
> So now that the OpenStack Foundation is now the Open Infrastructure
> Foundation, I think it time to take a look at some of the IRC channels
> we use. There are a few that come to mind that are used by the larger
> Foundation community- not just OpenStack anymore- that should probably
> be renamed[0].
>
> Below is a list of the channels that come to mind and proposed new
> channel names. Please add to the list or suggest alternative names if
> you hate what I've come up with. My goal is to process these renames
> by the end of the year.
>
> - #openstack-ptg  -> #oif-ptg
> - #openstack-forum -> #oif-forum
> - #openstack-diversity -> #oif-diversity
> - #openstack-board -> #oif-board
> - #openstack-foundation -> #oif
> - #openinfra-summit -> #oif-summit
>
Kendall,

Thanks for proposing these.

I think standardizing around 'oif' makes sense.  It is a little terse,
but can't come up with another combination that doesn't result in
something unwieldy.

Jay


> Look forward to everyone's thoughts!
>
> -Kendall (diablo_rojo)
>
> [0]
> https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel
> <https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Agree.
Suggest to add #oif-interop.
Wonder if #oif that replaces foundation is good. Feels that you want to add another word.
Like general.

From: Jay Bryant <jungleboyj@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:26 AM
To: foundation@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]


On 12/14/2020 4:20 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:
Hello!

So now that the OpenStack Foundation is now the Open Infrastructure Foundation, I think it time to take a look at some of the IRC channels we use. There are a few that come to mind that are used by the larger Foundation community- not just OpenStack anymore- that should probably be renamed[0].

Below is a list of the channels that come to mind and proposed new channel names. Please add to the list or suggest alternative names if you hate what I've come up with. My goal is to process these renames by the end of the year.

- #openstack-ptg -> #oif-ptg
- #openstack-forum -> #oif-forum
- #openstack-diversity -> #oif-diversity
- #openstack-board -> #oif-board
- #openstack-foundation -> #oif
- #openinfra-summit -> #oif-summit


Kendall,

Thanks for proposing these.

I think standardizing around 'oif' makes sense. It is a little terse, but can't come up with another combination that doesn't result in something unwieldy.

Jay


Look forward to everyone's thoughts!

-Kendall (diablo_rojo)

[0] https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel


_______________________________________________

Foundation mailing list

Foundation@lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 2020-12-15 16:36:55 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
[...]
> Wonder if #oif that replaces foundation is good. Feels that you
> want to add another word. Like general.
[...]

The way channel namespace authority works in Freenode is that they
want to see that namespace as a registered channel, so we need a
#oif channel regardless. If we don't use if for general OIF
discussions, then people are still likely to wander into it from
time to time and ask questions. It's really a question of whether we
have #oif *and* #oif-general (and people remain confused on which
one should be used for general OIF discussion), or just #oif.

You'll note that for the #openstack channel serves this same purpose
for the OpenStack community's channel namespace on Freenode, and
gets used primarily for general user questions.
--
Jeremy Stanley

My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move with the
same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
Cheers,
Ryan


On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:02 AM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-15 16:36:55 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> [...]
> > Wonder if #oif that replaces foundation is good. Feels that you
> > want to add another word. Like general.
> [...]
>
> The way channel namespace authority works in Freenode is that they
> want to see that namespace as a registered channel, so we need a
> #oif channel regardless. If we don't use if for general OIF
> discussions, then people are still likely to wander into it from
> time to time and ask questions. It's really a question of whether we
> have #oif *and* #oif-general (and people remain confused on which
> one should be used for general OIF discussion), or just #oif.
>
> You'll note that for the #openstack channel serves this same purpose
> for the OpenStack community's channel namespace on Freenode, and
> gets used primarily for general user questions.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
[...]

The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
--
Jeremy Stanley

Kendall and Jeremy,

I'm good with the suggested name changes especially with that added
information the openinfra isn't available. We should definitely keep it
short so don't feel going to openinfratructure is a good alternative even
if it is more obvious. I do think the more we use OIF vs OSF it'll be more
natural for people to look for it.

Thanks,

Amy (spotz)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> [...]
>
> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization that has a trademark on “OIF”. While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.

We have started to replace the acronym with “OpenInfra Foundation” and “OpenInfra” depending on the use case. Another option to consider that we’re using for twitter handle, url, and similar spots is “OpenInfraDev”.

Thanks,
Wes

> On Dec 15, 2020, at 10:50 AM, Amy Marrich <amy@demarco.com> wrote:
>
> Kendall and Jeremy,
>
> I'm good with the suggested name changes especially with that added information the openinfra isn't available. We should definitely keep it short so don't feel going to openinfratructure is a good alternative even if it is more obvious. I do think the more we use OIF vs OSF it'll be more natural for people to look for it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy (spotz)
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org <mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org>> wrote:
> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> [...]
>
> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ <https://opensourceinfra.org/> community.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
> that has a trademark on “OIF”.

Presumably that's this organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum

> While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
[...]

Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
channels.
--
Jeremy Stanley

Ohh what about opninfra?:)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> > One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> > our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
> > that has a trademark on “OIF”.
>
> Presumably that's this organization:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum
>
> > While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> > to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> > advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
> [...]
>
> Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
> I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
> good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
> channels.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

What about #openinfra?

From: Amy Marrich <amy@demarco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Jeremy Stanley
Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Ohh what about opninfra?:)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org<mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org>> wrote:
On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
> One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
> our use of "OIF" to reduce confusion with another organization
> that has a trademark on "OIF".

Presumably that's this organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum

> While we won't be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
> advised to not use it in "attention getting" places.
[...]

Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
channels.
--
Jeremy Stanley
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 2020-12-15 22:07:43 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> What about #openinfra?
[...]

Excepted from another of my earlier replies (5 messages upthread),
"the #openinfra channel is already taken by the separate
https://opensourceinfra.org/ community."
--
Jeremy Stanley

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Thanks Jeremy.
#infraopen?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:12 PM
To: foundation@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames

On 2020-12-15 22:07:43 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> What about #openinfra?
[...]

Excepted from another of my earlier replies (5 messages upthread), "the #openinfra channel is already taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community."
--
Jeremy Stanley

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

I think #openinfra would be best, as it aligns with the web presence,
openinfra.dev.

At least that is my $0.02.

-Julia

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:57 PM Amy Marrich <amy@demarco.com> wrote:
>
> Ohh what about opninfra?:)
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-12-15 11:21:55 -0800 (-0800), Wes Wilson wrote:
>> > One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize
>> > our use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization
>> > that has a trademark on “OIF”.
>>
>> Presumably that's this organization:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Internetworking_Forum
>>
>> > While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
>> > to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been
>> > advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
>> [...]
>>
>> Right, so #oif and #oif-* channels seem to be out of the question.
>> I'm temporarily squatting #infra if folks think that could make a
>> good (short, not trademarkable) namespace for the foundation
>> channels.
>> --
>> Jeremy Stanley
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Hi Wes,

Is this really a blocker for oif for IRC?
Just wondering, as IRC is not very visible/popular for many communities...

OpenInfra would be 2nd best (but unavailable) which leaves us with OpenInfraDev otherwise.

-- Kurt


On 15 December 2020 20:21:55 CET, Wes Wilson <wes@openstack.org> wrote:
>One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize our
>use of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization that has a
>trademark on “OIF”. While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from
>using the acronym to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used,
>we have been advised to not use it in “attention getting” places.
>
>We have started to replace the acronym with “OpenInfra Foundation” and
>“OpenInfra” depending on the use case. Another option to consider that
>we’re using for twitter handle, url, and similar spots is
>“OpenInfraDev”.
>

--
Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de>, Cologne, Germany
(Sent from Mobile with K9.)

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>:
>
> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> [...]
>
> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.

It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?

My fallback suggestion would be to build on the #opendev channel which
we already have in active usage and use that as a prefix for the other
channels.

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 2020-12-16 09:03:28 +0100 (+0100), Dr. Jens Harbott wrote:
> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>:
> >
> > On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > > My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> > [...]
> >
> > The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> > namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> > taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
>
> It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
> ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
> list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
> contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?

It might seem like that, but there are plenty of other subscribers
still on the mailing list and people still in the IRC channel, me
among them, even if we're not terribly active in there these days.
Spencer was actually the one who registered the IRC channel (almost
5 years ago now), and Brian and Clint are also chanops in addition
to Lyz. I'm happy to reach out to them and ask whether they're
interested in having that become an Open Infrastructure Foundation
general discussion channel or something, but keep in mind that not
all the people involved in that community are necessarily fans of
OpenStack or the foundation (even some who were previously
contributors to OpenStack or to the Project Infrastructure team).

Some concern was raised in that channel in mid-2018, back around the
time OSF announced it was renaming the OpenStack Summit to the Open
Infrastructure Summit and we started coordinating Open
Infrastructure Days events. One participant cited the existence of
the then-new (but now entirely defunct) openinfra.events site as an
indication the foundation could attempt to usurp the "openinfra"
name and possibly the related IRC channel. These sentiments may
still linger.

> My fallback suggestion would be to build on the #opendev channel which
> we already have in active usage and use that as a prefix for the other
> channels.

I'd be even more concerned about this. We have enough trouble
reminding people that the OpenDev Collaboratory is a community-run
effort. For starters we're unlikely to want to give up the #opendev
channel to become a general foundation discussion channel, so will
end up fielding misdirected questions about the foundation there;
but also using lots of #opendev-* channels for foundation-specific
topics (when other foundation represented projects use their own
separate channel namespaces) would make the collaboratory seem much
more tightly coupled to the foundation staff and board of directors,
even though nearly none of the foundation's own software development
or server management happens in OpenDev.
--
Jeremy Stanley

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2020-12-16 09:03:28 +0100 (+0100), Dr. Jens Harbott wrote:
>> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>:
>>>
>>> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
>>>> My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
>>>> with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
>>> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
>>> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
>>
>> It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
>> ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
>> list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
>> contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?
>
> [...] I'm happy to reach out to them and ask whether they're
> interested in having that become an Open Infrastructure Foundation
> general discussion channel or something, but keep in mind that not
> all the people involved in that community are necessarily fans of
> OpenStack or the foundation (even some who were previously
> contributors to OpenStack or to the Project Infrastructure team).

Seems worth a try! We should not assume that they will necessarily say no.

--
Thierry

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 2020-12-17 12:43:01 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2020-12-16 09:03:28 +0100 (+0100), Dr. Jens Harbott wrote:
> > > Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>:
> > > >
> > > > On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > > > > My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
> > > > > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> > > > namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> > > > taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
> > >
> > > It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
> > > ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
> > > list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
> > > contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?
> > [...]
> >
> > I'm happy to reach out to them and ask whether they're
> > interested in having that become an Open Infrastructure Foundation
> > general discussion channel or something, but keep in mind that not
> > all the people involved in that community are necessarily fans of
> > OpenStack or the foundation (even some who were previously
> > contributors to OpenStack or to the Project Infrastructure team).
>
> Seems worth a try! We should not assume that they will necessarily say no.

After talking to Lyz, that community has decided to relocate their
discussions to the #opensourceinfra channel, so has granted control
of #openinfra to us as of 2020-12-22 (and I officially added it to
our channel access management bot last week). Conversations there
aren't logged yet, and it would be nice of us to leave that channel
itself unused and their forwarding address in the topic for a while
still, but we should be able to proceed with making use of the
namespace for renaming/recombining our existing foundation-specific
channels to #openinfra-whatever as time permits.
--
Jeremy Stanley

Great news! And I agree about giving the channel a breather, which will
also let us plan out for a smooth transition for those channels moving to
the new namespace.

Thanks,

Amy

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:14 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-17 12:43:01 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > > On 2020-12-16 09:03:28 +0100 (+0100), Dr. Jens Harbott wrote:
> > > > Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 19:33 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Stanley <
> fungi@yuggoth.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
> > > > > > My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting
> move
> > > > > > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
> > > > > namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
> > > > > taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me like this is mainly a project by pleia2, fellow
> > > > ex-infra-root, and also both the channel and the associated mailing
> > > > list don't look too active in recent years, so maybe we can get into
> > > > contact and consider some cooperation or possibly a handover?
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I'm happy to reach out to them and ask whether they're
> > > interested in having that become an Open Infrastructure Foundation
> > > general discussion channel or something, but keep in mind that not
> > > all the people involved in that community are necessarily fans of
> > > OpenStack or the foundation (even some who were previously
> > > contributors to OpenStack or to the Project Infrastructure team).
> >
> > Seems worth a try! We should not assume that they will necessarily say
> no.
>
> After talking to Lyz, that community has decided to relocate their
> discussions to the #opensourceinfra channel, so has granted control
> of #openinfra to us as of 2020-12-22 (and I officially added it to
> our channel access management bot last week). Conversations there
> aren't logged yet, and it would be nice of us to leave that channel
> itself unused and their forwarding address in the topic for a while
> still, but we should be able to proceed with making use of the
> namespace for renaming/recombining our existing foundation-specific
> channels to #openinfra-whatever as time permits.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

Hello Everyone!

Quick update: It sounds like we have managed to negotiate control of the
#openinfra group on freenode and can begin the migration! (Correct me
if I'm wrong, fungi :) ).

So! This is the plan:

- #openstack-ptg -> #openinfra-ptg
- #openstack-forum -> #openinfra-forum
- #openstack-diversity -> #openinfra-diversity
- #openstack-board -> #openinfra-board (this one has already begun)
- #openstack-foundation -> #openinfra
- #openinfra-summit -> #openinfra-summit

If there are any others you have seen that could also require updating,
please let us know! I will be coordinating with fungi to do the migrations
this week and will work on updating any documentation after the migrations
take place.

-Kendall (diablo_rojo)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:21 AM Wes Wilson <wes@openstack.org> wrote:

> One logistical item to point out. We have been advised to minimize our use
> of “OIF” to reduce confusion with another organization that has a trademark
> on “OIF”. While we won’t be able to prevent everyone from using the acronym
> to reference the foundation, much like OSF was used, we have been advised
> to not use it in “attention getting” places.
>
> We have started to replace the acronym with “OpenInfra Foundation” and
> “OpenInfra” depending on the use case. Another option to consider that
> we’re using for twitter handle, url, and similar spots is “OpenInfraDev”.
>
> Thanks,
> Wes
>
> On Dec 15, 2020, at 10:50 AM, Amy Marrich <amy@demarco.com> wrote:
>
> Kendall and Jeremy,
>
> I'm good with the suggested name changes especially with that added
> information the openinfra isn't available. We should definitely keep it
> short so don't feel going to openinfratructure is a good alternative even
> if it is more obvious. I do think the more we use OIF vs OSF it'll be more
> natural for people to look for it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy (spotz)
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-12-15 12:20:58 -0600 (-0600), Ryan Beisner wrote:
>> > My $0.02 over lunch: I think #openinfra-* would be a fitting move
>> > with the same number of digits and a recognizable moniker.
>> [...]
>>
>> The blocker there is that we can't control the #openinfra-*
>> namespace on Freenode because the #openinfra channel is already
>> taken by the separate https://opensourceinfra.org/ community.
>> --
>> Jeremy Stanley
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
>

On 2021-01-26 12:45:24 -0800 (-0800), Kendall Nelson wrote:
> So! This is the plan:
>
> - #openstack-ptg -> #openinfra-ptg
> - #openstack-forum -> #openinfra-forum
> - #openstack-diversity -> #openinfra-diversity
> - #openstack-board -> #openinfra-board (this one has already begun)
> - #openstack-foundation -> #openinfra
> - #openinfra-summit -> #openinfra-summit
[...]

This seems reasonable. The only hitch is that if we start using the
base #openinfra channel for foundation discussions, we should
probably continue to mention #opensourceinfra in the channel topic
for a while in case any stragglers are looking for where the
previous inhabitants relocated.

It also might be a good opportunity to think about our current
channel fragmentation, and consider whether we should be combining
some of these to simplify our communications. For example, -forum
and -summit and -board might make sense to just mash into #openinfra
if discussion volume and lack of separation aren't a concern. Just a
thought... there's likely to be no better time than now to decide
that, at least.
--
Jeremy Stanley

Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

Jeremy,
Is there a way to redirect IRC channel to another?
Unless we want to keep old openstack IRCs function for openstack only.
Thanks,
Arkady

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 3:45 PM
To: foundation@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [all] IRC Channel Renames

On 2021-01-26 12:45:24 -0800 (-0800), Kendall Nelson wrote:
> So! This is the plan:
>
> - #openstack-ptg -> #openinfra-ptg
> - #openstack-forum -> #openinfra-forum
> - #openstack-diversity -> #openinfra-diversity
> - #openstack-board -> #openinfra-board (this one has already begun)
> - #openstack-foundation -> #openinfra
> - #openinfra-summit -> #openinfra-summit
[...]

This seems reasonable. The only hitch is that if we start using the base #openinfra channel for foundation discussions, we should probably continue to mention #opensourceinfra in the channel topic for a while in case any stragglers are looking for where the previous inhabitants relocated.

It also might be a good opportunity to think about our current channel fragmentation, and consider whether we should be combining some of these to simplify our communications. For example, -forum and -summit and -board might make sense to just mash into #openinfra if discussion volume and lack of separation aren't a concern. Just a thought... there's likely to be no better time than now to decide that, at least.
--
Jeremy Stanley

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 2021-01-26 22:09:57 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> Is there a way to redirect IRC channel to another?
> Unless we want to keep old openstack IRCs function for openstack only.
[...]

The precise term is "forwarding" but yes, it's possible and part of
the specific process we recommend:

https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/system-config/latest/irc.html#renaming-an-irc-channel

--
Jeremy Stanley

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2021-01-26 12:45:24 -0800 (-0800), Kendall Nelson wrote:
>> So! This is the plan:
>>
>> - #openstack-ptg -> #openinfra-ptg
>> - #openstack-forum -> #openinfra-forum
>> - #openstack-diversity -> #openinfra-diversity
>> - #openstack-board -> #openinfra-board (this one has already begun)
>> - #openstack-foundation -> #openinfra
>> - #openinfra-summit -> #openinfra-summit
> [...]
>
> This seems reasonable. The only hitch is that if we start using the
> base #openinfra channel for foundation discussions, we should
> probably continue to mention #opensourceinfra in the channel topic
> for a while in case any stragglers are looking for where the
> previous inhabitants relocated.
>
> It also might be a good opportunity to think about our current
> channel fragmentation, and consider whether we should be combining
> some of these to simplify our communications. For example, -forum
> and -summit and -board might make sense to just mash into #openinfra
> if discussion volume and lack of separation aren't a concern. Just a
> thought... there's likely to be no better time than now to decide
> that, at least.

Yes I agree that we should reduce fragmentation, as using too many
channels can result in ghost towns and unaddressed questions.

As long as the audiences are the same and/or the conversations are not
happening at the same time, we should reuse channels. For example, we
could totally use a single #openinfra-events channel to regroup -ptg
-forum and -summit discussions.

--
Thierry

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation