results from

[C. Boemann]

On Monday 21 November 2011 15:38:11 you wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 02:43 PM, C. Boemann wrote:
> But that means we exclude him from the decision that could have taken
> place at our mailinglist (where him and me btw could have participated
> at) and not at the sprint (where neither him nor me where able to
> participate).
> 
> I think doing such a finding with him together would not only increase
> the possibility for adoption but maybe would also provide valuable input
> to all of us. I mean maybe he was lately thinking that the Tables-name
> is not good too and maybe even has already an idea for an alternate
> name? Cannot harm to share here as soon as possible.
I actually talked to Marijn beforehand and he said there could be no harm in 
discussing it at the sprint.

> >> 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.
> 
> Okeli. Well, sometimes it happens but accident. How that list of names
> was assembled is probably a good example. It just happens to exclude
> those who where not there. Surely the same can happen with a mailinglist
> (e.g. being in holidays) but then it's more the own fault to not check
> every few days mails rather then not doing a trip around the globe.
Sure but as the discussions were not going to end with the poll I see no 
problem. Also no matter how we do these things polls, sprints, ML. Someone is 
going to miss it. It wasn't like the poll wasn't announced on the ML.

> >> 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.
> 
> And that is where I don't agree. I already do not think a voting would
> be needed at all but in any case I think the voting comes at the very
> end of a longer process. I mean you should be able to form an opinion.
> That means input, input and more input. As more sources as better else
> we could all just do what FOX-news says and be fine.
> 
> >>> 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.
> 
> I see. So, it's a timing-problem why the process looks so wrong. That is
> very good news cause it means it's not a common issue in our decision
> making/finding but an issue in our time-management :-)
> 
> Did anyone ping Mek on IRC about that? Is he aware? Do we have alternate
> suggestions to the rename to solve the IRC-communication / bugzilla
> problems?
Yes I've mentioned it to him before

And the reason why the process is a bit backwards, is that if we can't find a 
better new name then we don't _have_ to rename away from Tables. So The idea 
is to see if we can come up with a better name, and then decide if it is worth 
a rename

> >>> 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?
> 
> Well, I think neither of them really matches to the "name says what the
> application is about" idea. They are just more worse then whatever we
> had before including KSpread. Grids=painting? Blocks=building?
> Boxes=design? Flat=huh? "Numbers n shit"=okeli, a joke.
Sure but they were the names on the list at the end of the sprint