On 11/21/2011 02:43 PM, C. Boemann wrote:
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).
Okeli. Thanks for clarification.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see and I trust you on that. Still I would like to make it easy for
anybody to give there opinion/input/ideas. That still can mean they are
not allowed to have an actual vote but input/ideas are great to have
especially on something like finding a name. Maybe some genius, who did
not contribute before, shares an amazing idea for a name? Nothing is
impossible (remember how we found the Calligra-name).
That's why a discussion on a mailinglist is so great. Sometimes
bikesheding (aka as much input/ideas as possible) is what you like to
have. See e.g. the latest KDE wallpaper-contest :-)
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
Ah, ok. I wasn't aware that the software does the counting. Thanks.
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?
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.
_______________________________________________
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
