Open Stack

Monty Taylor wrote:
> What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical:
> 
> - Anyone can propose a name
> - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria
> -  * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort

Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you.
For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because
there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to
be pretty detailed to be entirely objective.

> - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names
> they find image-wise problematic
> - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members
> containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly
> labeled, like this:
> 
> * Love
> * Lumber
> * Lettuce
> * Lemming - marketing issues identified
> 
> - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in
> order until a legally acceptable winner is found
> 
> This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as
> transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed
> for anyone to volunteer to be an election official.
> 
> I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a
> launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote
> trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off
> of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection)

It's been some time since we last used a Launchpad poll. I recently used
an open surveymonkey poll, which allowed crude ranking. Agree that
Condorcet is better, as long as you can determine a clear list of voters.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)