On 11/21/2011 11:40 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 21 November 2011 10:53, Sebastian Sauer<m...@dipe.org> wrote:
On 11/21/2011 09:11 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 21 November 2011 08:27, Sebastian Sauer<m...@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 [**]?
As you and all the core contributors know for first time it all
started in November 2010 before the split on private list (natural
choice for us by then). The 2nd sprint was exactly year after.
And we came up with the name Tables. That was the decision. That this
decision is now aborted and re-done is something that is absolute new to
me. it was clear the first time for me when the list of names was
already done. That's not exactly transparent.
Some people used the time to find out that there are problems with the
name Tables.
Sure. I remember some people say the same about Words (to generic), Kexi
(non db related) or ... Such talks are fine and good but this is not
about some people but should be about all. Let's not try to turn such
things into a OOXML-fasttrack candidate.
Discussion continued on IRC not once, some of use were
interested but naturally some others did not care, what's natural too.
and?
[*] Wasn't there once the rule that during sprints no decisions should be
made cause it excludes to many non-participants?
Oh no, e.g. I have heard there were decisions regarding the text
layout engine or important decisions regaring krita development, to
name just these two, and yet not all the contributors potentially
interested were able to attend.
Let's try to find a more matching example. What when I meet up with a
friend and decide that KexiDB needs to be replaced with QtSQL inside
Kexi and then we just decide about that without even talking with Adam
or you? Do you think that's the way to go?
I agree all this looks really chaotic especially in the eyes of non-participant.
[**] Cause nobody proposed a renamed before discussion is irrelevant? (this
takes reference to your reply to a mail asking exactly for such a
discussion).
Decision belongs to Marijn... hmm I am afraid he may be confused now
because all of this discussion.
"Don't ask, obey!"?
What I said is that all this discussion on whether Abacus is very good
or very bad started one year ago.
And it still confuses us?
Last time, Tables won over Abacus.
Okeli, now Abacus won? Fine, then I am starting hereby a theird
refind-the-name process. Here is the list of names and everybody is open
to vote;
1. Tables
2. Calligra Tables
The result of the voting will be named tomorrow. Discussion is
prohibited (cause it only confused us) and speaking against is not
allowed cause "some of us do like to have that" and "since a long time".
Obey!
The maintainer decides, but who hosted the discussion decides on the
rules how to produce input for the maintainer.
See my voting above. I decide by the rules. Yeah! :-)
Every rule could be
better in some optics e.g. we could wait longer and rename after the
first stable Calligra - that would be worse in my opinion.
Sorry for being "a bit" sarcastic but that is what you reply sounds to me.
_______________________________________________
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
