results from

[C. Boemann]

On Monday 21 November 2011 14:11:00 you wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 01:37 PM, C. Boemann wrote:
> > On Monday 21 November 2011 13:18:50 Sebastian Sauer wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> calligra-devel mailing list
> >> calligra-devel at kde.org
> >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
> > 
> > But who says all of that still cant happen. And you keep calling it a
> > vote.
> 
> Me? Sorry, your initial mail had the subject
> 
> "Voting for the best name for the Caligra Spreadsheet Application"
> 
> and in your latest mail you wrote
> 
> "but in all fairness all proposed names were brought to the vote."
Okay I may have fallen into the trap as well but i never called it a decision 
making vote.

> > It
> > was a poll to cut down a list we compiled during the sprint. Out of that
> > poll comes a suggestion. You are free to make another suggestion.
> 
> Is that a proposal to redo the "poll / voting"? Cause else it would not
> make any sense... or do you suggest to now take only Abacus (and Tables)
> from the list + add my (and other) suggestions and then do the actual
> voting on them?
No need to redo. To poll was to give input into the further process. So I 
propose to take only Abacus, Spreads, Tables + add yours (and other) 
suggestions and then that may end in a decision (by vote or otherwise).

> Also I would like clarification about;
> 1. Do we only take 1 (the proposal with the most votes) from the list or
> the first 2 or 3 or... ?
We take the poll and look at what people thought. Nothing more nothing less.

> 2. What if Mek things "but I think KSpreadsheet would be a nice name too
> but I would like to know if others from the community see it the same"?
> Do we redo everything then?
No we don't redo anything but anyone can make a poll about another set of 
names (including or not names from the first poll). It's input and provides  
much clearer result than many mails. Still it is Marijn's decision or if he 
defers it to a decision making vote.

> 3. As basic requirement for such a voting I would like to know who is
> allowed to vote. I prefer here an inclusive and not exclusive process
> here. In any case it would be nice to know;
I don't recall us ever having exclusive voting, so why would it be different in 
the future.
> a) what are the requirements to be allowed to vote?
> b) I like to know who was allowed to vote so I am sure nobody was
> excluded (I guess by defining point a we would already cleared that point)
You mean the poll? All who asked were obviously sent a link to vote, but i'm 
not going to disclose emails and how people voted. If anyone think I excluded 
them they had a week to raise their voice on the ML.

> 4. How is the counting done?
Condorset rules. Don't know the exact math and don't really care. We have used 
that site before and it appears to be accepted by a wider audience as fair

> 5. What do others think about the proposed names?
Not that people aren't allowed to say so now, but the point of a vote is to 
collect such opinions in a balanced and no noise way.

> 
> > In the end it's
> > up to Marijn. He could then perhaps set up a formal election or not. But
> > we don't have unlimited time until the first Calligra release,
> 
> Now jaroslaw wrote there are discussions going on since more then a
> year... and now shortly before the release it's pushed cause nobody was
> motivated to make it a public topic for suggestion before? Now I am very
> sure that something smells with the whole decision and voting process.
It has come up on irc many times. And it makes sense to bring it up formally 
before it's too late.

> 
> > and cutting away
> > early ideas that never has a chance will make the rest of the discussions
> > more qualitative.
> 
> And add Grids, Blocks, Boxes, Flat and  "Numbers n shit" to the list of
> 10 possible choices?
huh?

> > I must say I like the Latin derivations of Tables someone proposed too
> > (because it makes the name distinctive without changing too much). I
> > respect the poll saying most people like Abacus (I had that on top
> > myself too). But I also think Spreads is still eligible for further
> > discussions, even though it only got in second.
> > 
> > So to conclude: Nothing has been decided. I can only assume you have
> > misunderstood that.
> 
> Good to read :-)