Open Stack

On 01/28/2015 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> 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.
Naming isn't objective. That is both the value and the hardship.
> 
>> - 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
Ohh, it gives me a thrill to see a name that means something even
remotely Canadian. (not advocating it be added to this round)
>> * 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.
> 

Glad we are talking about this,
Anita.