The rules were for submissions, not for the vote itself. The submissions were gathered in part, and the rules were set, as a reaction to ManifoldCF itself. It's therefore perfectly valid that ManifoldCF remained on the voting list. So deciding on ManifoldCF seems an appropriate step. If you feel aggrieved, we could vote on Manicon as well.
Karl On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > You are correct about the rules. I added that name back in when we > replaced the original vote for it with the name gathering exercise and > then a vote, and I did not make it clear what I was doing. But then > we still have to hold a vote on ManifoldCF, since that vote was > aborted, and Grant did propose it as a name. > > Let me think about the proper way to handle this... > Karl > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Jack Krupansky > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Fair enough. I could live with any of the other choices, but having this >> "CF" suffix really messes a lot of stuff up and is less practical than any >> of the other names. Basically, it means we may end up having to use "MCF" as >> the shorthand name. >> >> Wait... stop the presses... I just realized that "ManifoldCF" violates >> selection rule #5: >> >> (5) No more than 4 syllables >> >> Man-I-fold-C-F (or is in Ma-ni-fold-C-F.) >> >> That's five syllables. >> >> And, technically, I would say that it at least half violates the spirit of >> rule #1: >> >> (1) It's a single word >> >> It is a single word plus this extra "CF" acronym thing. >> >> So, next candidate on the list was... Manicon, 19 >> >> Unless it has legal problems, it fits our requirements. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Karl Wright" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:52 PM >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF >> >>> Jack, >>> >>> That's one of the main purposes of having everyone list choices by >>> priority. If one doesn't work, there are others you can use. >>> >>> I don't want to open that vote again unless the community decides that >>> the list of candidate names was simply not rich enough to furnish a >>> good choice. >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Jack Krupansky >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Or Nocon or Noman. >>>> >>>> I know people are tired of voting, but I think we should really re-vote >>>> for >>>> the revised candidate list with Connex removed. >>>> >>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Mark Miller" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:43 PM >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF >>>> >>>>> hmmm...I think I'm all voted out. Can we just call it nothing? >>>>> >>>>> On 9/28/10 6:40 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote +1 to rename Apache Connectors Framework to Apache ManifoldCF. >>>>>> Vote -1 to keep the project name of Connectors Framework, or to retain >>>>>> Connex, if that wins its vote. >>>>>> >>>>>> This vote also expires end of day on Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: "Manifold" is a trademark for a GIS software product. However, >>>>>> I agree with Grant that ManifoldCF appearing under the Apache label >>>>>> should be safe to be used. But you should recognize that this vote is >>>>>> not merely a referendum on the name itself, but also on the >>>>>> suitability of the name in a legal context. >>>>>> >>>>>> Karl >>>>> >>>> >> >
