8:47 p.m.
All:
We've seen a number of short-hands for "Operate First" that are most
commonly used when referring to the project and community, and less often
for the Operate First concept.
Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is "Op1st" that is
most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing shorthands
for "operation/operate" and "first".
Here is where discussion so far has taken place, full backgrounder below:
https://github.com/operate-first/community/issues/104
What do you all think?
Are folks willing to shift to consistently using Op1st as the shorthand for
the "Operate First project and community"?
(The latter includes a corresponding agreement to use the stand-alone
"Operate First" to refer to the concept and initiative, saving "Op1st"
for
everything about the actual Open Source project and activities.)
Kind regards,
- Karsten
----
Full backgrounder from this comment
<https://github.com/operate-first/community/issues/104#issuecomment-997286...
:
"Where I am starting from is this problem statement:
Since it is important and a given that *Operate First* as a concept and an
overarching methodology MUST be neutral on technologies and methods for it
to be adopted by the ecosystem and have an effect ...
... how do we differentiate between that neutral concept and the specific
technologies and methods we adopt in this community without diluting the
meaning and brand of "Operate First"?
In other words, when we call anything/everything in this OpenShift and
GitOps/GitHub-using community "Operate First", we are *diluting our own
brand*. We are confusing the meaning of Operate First and making it harder
for ourselves to have the ecosystem-wide effect.
Yet, we are doing all this hard work for the intended effect of showing and
proving that the Operate First concept and methodology actually work in
practice, in the real world, with real workloads in a real production
environment. It is equally important we connect this community with the
Operate First brand and not dilute that brand.
So the goals are:
1. Connect with but don't dilute the Operate First brand,
2. Don't make our lives harder (for no good reason), and
3. Widen the tent of those who want to and can *operate first* by giving
them an "Operate First"-brand that can include them regardless of their
relationship to our specific community technologies and methods.
As a slight-rough analogy, look at the Fedora Project and community, and
their central output, Fedora Linux.
People use the word "Fedora" to mean any one of those, it's a common short
hand. But when you think about it, the brand is "Fedora" and the brand
being connected-with-but-not-diluted-by "Fedora" is the "Linux"
brand.
In our situation, the "Operate First" brand is more analogous to
"Linux"
than it is to "Fedora". And until we can get the Operate First brand to
have ecosystem reach the way the "upstream first" concept sort-of has, I
believe we are looking for the fine line of "close but not too close" in
branding for this community project.
The two just-close-enough ideas I've seen so far are:
1. "Op1st", spoken as "Op First"
2. "O1", spoken as "Oh One" (or "Oh First"?)
I wholeheartedly invite debate and other name ideas.
Two final thoughts;
- One of my mentors on branding @cdgrams <https://github.com/cdgrams> (or
was it Burney?) said, "A brand is a sponge." Since we get some say on the
cellular structure of that sponge and first crack at filling the sponge,
let's make it count.
- "Op1st" is a recursive pun, being the first operating community to run
itself under the Operate First concept.
"
--
Karsten Wade [he/him/his] | Principal Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen
The Open Source Way : https://theopensourceway.org
Operate First : https://operate-first.cloud
11:01 p.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:48 PM Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com> wrote:
All:
We've seen a number of short-hands for "Operate First" that are most
commonly used when referring to the project and community, and less often
for the Operate First concept.
Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is "Op1st" that is
most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing shorthands
for "operation/operate" and "first".
Here is where discussion so far has taken place, full backgrounder below:
https://github.com/operate-first/community/issues/104
What do you all think?
Are folks willing to shift to consistently using Op1st as the shorthand
for the "Operate First project and community"?
(The latter includes a corresponding agreement to use the stand-alone
"Operate First" to refer to the concept and initiative, saving
"Op1st" for
everything about the actual Open Source project and activities.)
If we're concerned about confusion between Operate First the concept and
Operate First the project, then isn't Op1st too close to provide that
separation?
My two cents is that we don't need the phrase "Operate First" to be free of
project or technology specific connotations in order for the concept of
operating first to be successful. Like, lots of people do "upstream first"
without ever thinking about or referencing that specific term.
Kind regards,
- Karsten
----
Full backgrounder from this comment
<https://github.com/operate-first/community/issues/104#issuecomment-997286...
:
"Where I am starting from is this problem statement:
Since it is important and a given that *Operate First* as a concept and
an overarching methodology MUST be neutral on technologies and methods
for it to be adopted by the ecosystem and have an effect ...
... how do we differentiate between that neutral concept and the specific
technologies and methods we adopt in this community without diluting the
meaning and brand of "Operate First"?
In other words, when we call anything/everything in this OpenShift and
GitOps/GitHub-using community "Operate First", we are *diluting our own
brand*. We are confusing the meaning of Operate First and making it
harder for ourselves to have the ecosystem-wide effect.
Yet, we are doing all this hard work for the intended effect of showing
and proving that the Operate First concept and methodology actually work in
practice, in the real world, with real workloads in a real production
environment. It is equally important we connect this community with the
Operate First brand and not dilute that brand.
So the goals are:
1. Connect with but don't dilute the Operate First brand,
2. Don't make our lives harder (for no good reason), and
3. Widen the tent of those who want to and can *operate first* by
giving them an "Operate First"-brand that can include them regardless of
their relationship to our specific community technologies and methods.
As a slight-rough analogy, look at the Fedora Project and community, and
their central output, Fedora Linux.
People use the word "Fedora" to mean any one of those, it's a common short
hand. But when you think about it, the brand is "Fedora" and the brand
being connected-with-but-not-diluted-by "Fedora" is the "Linux"
brand.
In our situation, the "Operate First" brand is more analogous to
"Linux"
than it is to "Fedora". And until we can get the Operate First brand to
have ecosystem reach the way the "upstream first" concept sort-of has, I
believe we are looking for the fine line of "close but not too close" in
branding for this community project.
The two just-close-enough ideas I've seen so far are:
1. "Op1st", spoken as "Op First"
2. "O1", spoken as "Oh One" (or "Oh First"?)
I wholeheartedly invite debate and other name ideas.
Two final thoughts;
- One of my mentors on branding @cdgrams <https://github.com/cdgrams> (or
was it Burney?) said, "A brand is a sponge." Since we get some say on the
cellular structure of that sponge and first crack at filling the sponge,
let's make it count.
- "Op1st" is a recursive pun, being the first operating community to
run itself under the Operate First concept.
"
--
Karsten Wade [he/him/his] | Principal Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen
The Open Source Way : https://theopensourceway.org
Operate First : https://operate-first.cloud
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
3:09 a.m.
Would it be a shorthand though? Or rather the community and project name?
Shorthand are for the elected few that work on a subject day in day out.
They tend to erect barriers to people coming in.
Now if the project and community is named Op1st, then that's different and
clearly separate the concept front he community naturally.
So in decreasing preference
1. project and community officially named Op1st
2. We don't use shorthands
3. we use a consistent shorthand
4. today
Emmanuel
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 3:48 AM Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com> wrote:
All:
We've seen a number of short-hands for "Operate First" that are most
commonly used when referring to the project and community, and less often
for the Operate First concept.
Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is "Op1st" that is
most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing shorthands
for "operation/operate" and "first".
Here is where discussion so far has taken place, full backgrounder below:
https://github.com/operate-first/community/issues/104
What do you all think?
Are folks willing to shift to consistently using Op1st as the shorthand
for the "Operate First project and community"?
(The latter includes a corresponding agreement to use the stand-alone
"Operate First" to refer to the concept and initiative, saving
"Op1st" for
everything about the actual Open Source project and activities.)
Kind regards,
- Karsten
----
Full backgrounder from this comment
<https://github.com/operate-first/community/issues/104#issuecomment-997286...
:
"Where I am starting from is this problem statement:
Since it is important and a given that *Operate First* as a concept and
an overarching methodology MUST be neutral on technologies and methods
for it to be adopted by the ecosystem and have an effect ...
... how do we differentiate between that neutral concept and the specific
technologies and methods we adopt in this community without diluting the
meaning and brand of "Operate First"?
In other words, when we call anything/everything in this OpenShift and
GitOps/GitHub-using community "Operate First", we are *diluting our own
brand*. We are confusing the meaning of Operate First and making it
harder for ourselves to have the ecosystem-wide effect.
Yet, we are doing all this hard work for the intended effect of showing
and proving that the Operate First concept and methodology actually work in
practice, in the real world, with real workloads in a real production
environment. It is equally important we connect this community with the
Operate First brand and not dilute that brand.
So the goals are:
1. Connect with but don't dilute the Operate First brand,
2. Don't make our lives harder (for no good reason), and
3. Widen the tent of those who want to and can *operate first* by
giving them an "Operate First"-brand that can include them regardless of
their relationship to our specific community technologies and methods.
As a slight-rough analogy, look at the Fedora Project and community, and
their central output, Fedora Linux.
People use the word "Fedora" to mean any one of those, it's a common short
hand. But when you think about it, the brand is "Fedora" and the brand
being connected-with-but-not-diluted-by "Fedora" is the "Linux"
brand.
In our situation, the "Operate First" brand is more analogous to
"Linux"
than it is to "Fedora". And until we can get the Operate First brand to
have ecosystem reach the way the "upstream first" concept sort-of has, I
believe we are looking for the fine line of "close but not too close" in
branding for this community project.
The two just-close-enough ideas I've seen so far are:
1. "Op1st", spoken as "Op First"
2. "O1", spoken as "Oh One" (or "Oh First"?)
I wholeheartedly invite debate and other name ideas.
Two final thoughts;
- One of my mentors on branding @cdgrams <https://github.com/cdgrams> (or
was it Burney?) said, "A brand is a sponge." Since we get some say on the
cellular structure of that sponge and first crack at filling the sponge,
let's make it count.
- "Op1st" is a recursive pun, being the first operating community to
run itself under the Operate First concept.
"
--
Karsten Wade [he/him/his] | Principal Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen
The Open Source Way : https://theopensourceway.org
Operate First : https://operate-first.cloud
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
12:46 p.m.
New subject: "Op1st" as formal short-hand for "the Operate First project"
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:47:37PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is
"Op1st" that is
most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing shorthands
for "operation/operate" and "first".
I've always felt that "Op1st" is clunky. The correct pronunciation
doesn't really follow from the spelling if you're not already familiar
with Operate First. It looks like a clever numeric contraction -- like
"i18n" or "l10n", but it isn't.
If I wanted a shorthand for referring to Operate First, I would go
with either "opf" (because that's already in wide use through our own
configuration and documentation), or possibly "O1" as a distant
second.
If I were looking to differentiate "operate first", the concept, vs
"operate first", a particular implementation of that concept: I guess
I would follow the example that's already been given for Fedora, and
just keep calling things "operate first", adding qualifiers as
necessary ("operate first cluster", etc). Spelling it "Op1st" and
still pronouncing it "operate first" doesn't seem to do anything but
sew confusion and practically we end up in the same place.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com> | larsks @ {irc,twitter,github}
http://blog.oddbit.com/ | N1LKS
12:55 p.m.
New subject: "Op1st" as formal short-hand for "the Operate First project"
+1 on Lars' argument and thinking. I second keep calling it "Operate First"
and add qualifiers as need, like "Operate First Community Cloud"
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:47 PM Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:47:37PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is "Op1st" that
is
> most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing shorthands
> for "operation/operate" and "first".
I've always felt that "Op1st" is clunky. The correct pronunciation
doesn't really follow from the spelling if you're not already familiar
with Operate First. It looks like a clever numeric contraction -- like
"i18n" or "l10n", but it isn't.
If I wanted a shorthand for referring to Operate First, I would go
with either "opf" (because that's already in wide use through our own
configuration and documentation), or possibly "O1" as a distant
second.
If I were looking to differentiate "operate first", the concept, vs
"operate first", a particular implementation of that concept: I guess
I would follow the example that's already been given for Fedora, and
just keep calling things "operate first", adding qualifiers as
necessary ("operate first cluster", etc). Spelling it "Op1st" and
still pronouncing it "operate first" doesn't seem to do anything but
sew confusion and practically we end up in the same place.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com> | larsks @ {irc,twitter,github}
http://blog.oddbit.com/ | N1LKS
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
11:50 p.m.
New subject: "Op1st" as formal short-hand for "the Operate First project"
+1. There were a few times I had to additionally clarify when I mentioned
'OP1ST' to my colleagues who heard of the initiative for the first time.
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:56 AM Marcel Hild <mhild(a)redhat.com> wrote:
+1 on Lars' argument and thinking. I second keep calling it
"Operate
First" and add qualifiers as need, like "Operate First Community Cloud"
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:47 PM Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:47:37PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is "Op1st"
that
> is
> > most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing
> shorthands
> > for "operation/operate" and "first".
>
> I've always felt that "Op1st" is clunky. The correct pronunciation
> doesn't really follow from the spelling if you're not already familiar
> with Operate First. It looks like a clever numeric contraction -- like
> "i18n" or "l10n", but it isn't.
>
> If I wanted a shorthand for referring to Operate First, I would go
> with either "opf" (because that's already in wide use through our own
> configuration and documentation), or possibly "O1" as a distant
> second.
>
> If I were looking to differentiate "operate first", the concept, vs
> "operate first", a particular implementation of that concept: I guess
> I would follow the example that's already been given for Fedora, and
> just keep calling things "operate first", adding qualifiers as
> necessary ("operate first cluster", etc). Spelling it "Op1st"
and
> still pronouncing it "operate first" doesn't seem to do anything but
> sew confusion and practically we end up in the same place.
>
> --
> Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com> | larsks @ {irc,twitter,github}
> http://blog.oddbit.com/ | N1LKS
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
> To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
7:03 a.m.
New subject: "Op1st" as formal short-hand for "the Operate First project"
+1 to sticking with the full name.
cheers,
Bill
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 12:52 AM Jeremy Choi <jechoi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
+1. There were a few times I had to additionally clarify when I
mentioned
'OP1ST' to my colleagues who heard of the initiative for the first time.
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:56 AM Marcel Hild <mhild(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> +1 on Lars' argument and thinking. I second keep calling it "Operate
> First" and add qualifiers as need, like "Operate First Community
Cloud"
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:47 PM Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:47:37PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>> > Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is
"Op1st" that
>> is
>> > most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing
>> shorthands
>> > for "operation/operate" and "first".
>>
>> I've always felt that "Op1st" is clunky. The correct pronunciation
>> doesn't really follow from the spelling if you're not already familiar
>> with Operate First. It looks like a clever numeric contraction -- like
>> "i18n" or "l10n", but it isn't.
>>
>> If I wanted a shorthand for referring to Operate First, I would go
>> with either "opf" (because that's already in wide use through our
own
>> configuration and documentation), or possibly "O1" as a distant
>> second.
>>
>> If I were looking to differentiate "operate first", the concept, vs
>> "operate first", a particular implementation of that concept: I guess
>> I would follow the example that's already been given for Fedora, and
>> just keep calling things "operate first", adding qualifiers as
>> necessary ("operate first cluster", etc). Spelling it "Op1st"
and
>> still pronouncing it "operate first" doesn't seem to do anything
but
>> sew confusion and practically we end up in the same place.
>>
>> --
>> Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com> | larsks @ {irc,twitter,github}
>> http://blog.oddbit.com/ | N1LKS
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>> To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
> To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
--
*Bill Burns (*He/Him/His)
Operate First Program Manager
Technology Strategy Team
CTO Organization
Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/>
bburns(a)redhat.com
11:13 a.m.
New subject: "Op1st" as formal short-hand for "the Operate First project"
+1 to sticking with the full name.
---
Robert Bohne | robert.bohne(a)redhat.com | +49-160-8452809 | @RobertBohne
<https://twitter.com/robertbohne>
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 2:04 PM Bill Burns <bburns(a)redhat.com> wrote:
+1 to sticking with the full name.
cheers,
Bill
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 12:52 AM Jeremy Choi <jechoi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> +1. There were a few times I had to additionally clarify when I mentioned
> 'OP1ST' to my colleagues who heard of the initiative for the first time.
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:56 AM Marcel Hild <mhild(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on Lars' argument and thinking. I second keep calling it "Operate
>> First" and add qualifiers as need, like "Operate First Community
Cloud"
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:47 PM Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:47:37PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>>> > Of all the options I've seen — OF, OPF, O1, Op1st — it is
"Op1st"
>>> that is
>>> > most distinct and actually reflective of the brand as existing
>>> shorthands
>>> > for "operation/operate" and "first".
>>>
>>> I've always felt that "Op1st" is clunky. The correct
pronunciation
>>> doesn't really follow from the spelling if you're not already
familiar
>>> with Operate First. It looks like a clever numeric contraction -- like
>>> "i18n" or "l10n", but it isn't.
>>>
>>> If I wanted a shorthand for referring to Operate First, I would go
>>> with either "opf" (because that's already in wide use through
our own
>>> configuration and documentation), or possibly "O1" as a distant
>>> second.
>>>
>>> If I were looking to differentiate "operate first", the concept,
vs
>>> "operate first", a particular implementation of that concept: I
guess
>>> I would follow the example that's already been given for Fedora, and
>>> just keep calling things "operate first", adding qualifiers as
>>> necessary ("operate first cluster", etc). Spelling it
"Op1st" and
>>> still pronouncing it "operate first" doesn't seem to do
anything but
>>> sew confusion and practically we end up in the same place.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars(a)redhat.com> | larsks @ {irc,twitter,github}
>>> http://blog.oddbit.com/ | N1LKS
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>> community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>> To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
> To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
>
--
*Bill Burns (*He/Him/His)
Operate First Program Manager
Technology Strategy Team
CTO Organization
Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/>
bburns(a)redhat.com
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list -- community(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
To unsubscribe send an email to community-leave(a)lists.operate-first.cloud
704
days inactive
708
days old
community@lists.operate-first.cloud
7 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Bill Burns -
Emmanuel Bernard -
Jason Brooks -
Jeremy Choi -
Karsten Wade -
Lars Kellogg-Stedman -
Marcel Hild -
Robert Bohne