results from

[Sebastian Sauer]

On 11/21/2011 11:29 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Monday 21 November 2011 Nov, Sebastian Sauer wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 09:11 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>>> On 21 November 2011 08:27, Sebastian Sauer<mail at dipe.org>   wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2011 04:36 AM, Thorsten Zachmann wrote:
>>>>>> It also reveals the names (for those that weren't at the sprint). And yes
>>>>>> some were made as a joke, but in all fairness all proposed names were
>>>>>> brought to the vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Abacus  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
>>>>> Even if it won the competition it is a bad choice as there is already a
>>>>> spreadsheet application out there with this name. See
>>>>> http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/deskutils/abacus.html
>>>> I agree. The sucks. Also the list of names is so bad that I don't wonder it
>>>> wins. Even more worse now we destroyed the nice idea the brand and the app
>>>> names had :-(
>>> Sorry guys, that was discussed already
>> Sorry, where was this discussed before? At the sprint where none of
>> those hacking on Tables participated [*]? In the mail that already
>> included the list of possible options set in stone [**]?
>>
>> [*] Wasn't there once the rule that during sprints no decisions should
>> be made cause it excludes to many non-participants?
> I'm not sure about that, but yes... It's not like anyone at the sprint could decide about a new name for Tables. I understand this vote to be nothing more than a vote on a selection of ideas that is then proposed to the Tables team.

Thanks for making the point I try to bring on the table more clear. The 
thing is that the selection of names was exactly not what we voted 
about. I am not even sure who made that list. In any case I remember 
back how we found the Calligra name and found that a very great process. 
I mean especially at something like that we could take more time and 
have a longer talk. In fact I count at least 3 people who replied to the 
initial mail that they do not agree with the process. So, I think we can 
optimize that. I mean not only for the case discussed here but just 
generally. I think we should
1. start with an initial discussion here on the mailinglist where 
nothing but nothing is pre-defined. Just state what is the goal, why and 
maybe add an initial list of what people think is good. And then start 
from there to see if we can find a common agreement on the list of 
names. Personally I think as more input we get as better. So, I would 
even not limit that to "only contributors" but just any name-proposal is 
a good one.
2. I think all that is related to this should happen at the mailinglist. 
I would even go as far to say the voting itself. But then I can 
understand that some would like to have a secret voting process. That's 
okay. But maybe some would not and they could already "vote" or at least 
bring there opinion on the table. We can then see who agrees and who 
doesn't. That doesn't any harm except maybe taking longer but then ihmo 
something like choosing a name for an application shouldn't be a 
5-minute process.

> It's up to Marijn, you and other Tables hackers to actually decide whether to do anything with the result of the vote.

As I wrote in my first reply I would really prefer to not do here a 
yes/no voting but get more input/feedback especially from Mek. I would 
even have preferred to get that one before we even start to vote.