That's really too high a bar. This community is still small. These types of procedural votes are majority votes. 3 days is always given to give plenty of time to vote.
If you insist, I don't see why we can't keep the vote open for another day or two, but I don't think it makes much sense to add some random minimum number of votes needed. It doesn't really jive with how Apache communities have worked in the past IMO. The 3 days takes into account waiting a good amount of time for a vote - adding a couple/few days, fine - but -1 to some kind of minimum voices needed. How many people are actually active on this project currently? 1.75? And you want 8 votes? We are lucky to have drawn in the bystanders votes we have. - Mark On 9/29/10 4:56 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: > Can we stick with a 8-person minimum quorum for this and most other > votes? In other words the vote closes at the deadline if there is a > quorum, other it stays open until 5 p.m. after there is a quorum. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Karl Wright" <daddy...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:38 PM > To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF > >> <= 0 means failure. >> >> Karl >> >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Jack Krupansky >> <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>> Ah, okay, that's cool. So if the vote fails (<= 0 or < 0?), we would >>> then >>> vote on the next choice, which is... "Manicon". >>> >>> -- Jack Krupansky >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Karl Wright" <daddy...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:01 PM >>> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF >>> >>>> We're trying for an up/down confirmation of ManifoldCF as a new name >>>> for the project. If it succeeds, that's our name. If it fails, it's >>>> on to the next-highest-ranking choice. Right now score is 0. >>>> >>>> Karl >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Jack Krupansky >>>> <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My apologies for not vetting connex properly. I actually do recall >>>>> seeing >>>>> the sourceforge project project now when reminded of it, but I was >>>>> working >>>>> too quickly and didn't get around to editing my list right away and >>>>> forgot >>>>> about it. And I assumed that Karl was going to vet names "properly" >>>>> anyway. >>>>> So... it's my fault that "manicon" wasn't there as the top choice when >>>>> people voted! >>>>> >>>>> In any case, I think I have lost track of where we were in the >>>>> process... >>>>> voting +1/-1 on keeping ManifoldCF vs. staying with Apache Connectors >>>>> Framework, I think? And with other Karl and I voting on that so far >>>>> (+1 >>>>> and >>>>> -1)? I'll let Karl send out a proper reminder of wherever he says >>>>> we are. >>>>> >>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>> From: "Karl Wright" <daddy...@gmail.com> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:08 AM >>>>> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF >>>>> >>>>>> May I point out that we've been discussing this issue for over two >>>>>> months >>>>>> now? >>>>>> >>>>>> We just went through a process of gathering names, came up with some >>>>>> 35 candidates, and voted to rank them. This process just ended, our >>>>>> best candidate turned out to not have been submitted properly, but we >>>>>> still have some 15 other names that people legitimately selected, >>>>>> ranked in order. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prior to that, we did a previous round where we did EXACTLY the same >>>>>> thing, and Apache Connectors Framework was the winning selection, >>>>>> followed by ManifoldCF. It sounds now like you are looking for yet a >>>>>> third round? Unless you claim that the candidate list was simply not >>>>>> broad enough, I can see no hope of gain by doing that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Karl >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some while back I suggested manifolio. But that breaches the four >>>>>>> syllable rule :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about Manifole? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd say rather than bursting into votes, keep the discussion >>>>>>> going, I >>>>>>> suspect you'll know when you've got enough of the community >>>>>>> behind you, >>>>>>> and when it is then worth wrapping the whole thing up with a vote >>>>>>> - at >>>>>>> which point the vote is a mere formality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Worth giving it the effort now, see this recent post [1] - a name is >>>>>>> going to stay with us all for a long time! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Upayavira >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2010/09/first-time-right >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 20:08 -0400, Karl Wright wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, an abbreviation of "AMCF" is not bad either.... kinda >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> that myself. But I'm still not sure I like any of the book title >>>>>>>> choices I've offered myself here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do we dare use "Manifold Connectors Framework in Action"? and >>>>>>>> describe AMCF as "Manifold Connectors Framework" at times? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > If this is adopted, I'm thinking we could use it in the >>>>>>>> following > > >>>>>>>> > ways: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Abbreviation: "MCF" >>>>>>>> > Short name: "ManifoldCF" >>>>>>>> > Qualified short name: "Apache ManifoldCF" >>>>>>>> > Fully qualified and unabbreviated name: "the Apache Manifold >>>>>>>> > Connectors Framework" >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I'm not quite sure what the world will think of that last >>>>>>>> usage, > >>>>>>>> > since >>>>>>>> > it does not contain the trademark. Then again, neither does the >>>>>>>> > abbreviation. But I'm not sure I'd dare make the book title be >>>>>>>> > "Apache Manifold Connectors Framework in Action". It would > >>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>>> > need to be "Apache ManifoldCF in Action", or just "ManifoldCF in >>>>>>>> > Action". >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Grant, you wrote a book. What do you think? Which title >>>>>>>> should > be >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > used? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Karl >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>> > <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> -1 for me. Standing alone it's an okay name, but trying to >> >>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>> >> >> use it >>>>>>>> >> is a pain (and we might as well call it MCF). But I'll >>>>>>>> certainly >> go >>>>>>>> >> >> along >>>>>>>> >> with the majority. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >> From: "Karl Wright" <daddy...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:25 PM >>>>>>>> >> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>>>>>>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to >> >>>>>>>> >> ManifoldCF >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> Ok, I just want an up-or-down vote on ManifoldCF at this point. >>>>>>>> >>> >>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>> >>> from >>>>>>>> >>> me. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Karl >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Mark Miller >>> >>>>>>>> >>> <markrmil...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> On 9/28/10 7:10 PM, Jack Krupansky 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. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> ManifoldCF was already in the running. And its obvious that >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> having >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> too >>>>>>>> >>>> many syllables is not a problem - it was the second most voted >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> name - >>>>>>>> >>>> for the *second* time at least (who can track all these >>>>>>>> votes). >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> That's a stretch that the rational part of my brain is >>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> ignore. >>>>>>>> >>>> This is no argument. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> So, next candidate on the list was... Manicon, 19 >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Unless it has legal problems, it fits our requirements. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Okay, lets vote again. For some reason ManifoldCF will stop >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> topping >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>> list why? Everyone will come to their senses? Some of us >>>>>>>> are so >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> sick of >>>>>>>> >>>> this name thing we won't vote, and if your lucky those will be >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>> ManifoldCF supporters? I mean come on... >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>> From: "Karl Wright" <daddy...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:52 PM >>>>>>>> >>>>> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> 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" <markrmil...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:43 PM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>
