Well, that's a little like saying 'Would you rather go to McDonalds or that new burger joint nobody knows that might be a lot better but also might be a lot worse?'
Perhaps if a new name is to be decided the benevolent dictator should simply decide a new name is to be given and it is up to us to decide which. Carlo Steve Harris schrieb: > OK, it seems like the consensus is clear to me. So far, most people want to > use/keep LADSPA2. I ran it through a condorcet program, just to make sure, > but it't not in doubt. FWIW, by my count the pure "acceptable" numbers > came out as: > > 17 ladspa2 > 7 xap > 6 peep > 5 apa > 4 sax > 4 plux > 3 rap > 2 peeper > 2 eep > 1 wasap > 1 sap > 1 pea > 1 openplux > 1 lapa > 1 fap > 1 clap > 1 chap > > And the condorcet pattern was: > > 9 ladspa2 > 1 ladspa2>apa>sax > 1 ladspa2>plux > 1 ladspa2>sap>xap>peep>peeper>sax>fap>eep>clap>chap>apa>rap>pea>wasap>rap > 1 ladspa2>lapa>plux>xap > 1 openplux>plux>ladspa2 > 1 peep > 1 peeper>peep>apa > 1 plux>apa>ladspa2 > 1 sax>eep>xap > 1 xap>apa>ladspa2 > 1 xap>peep > 1 xap>rap>peep > 1 xap>sax>peep>ladspa2 > > Only 23% of those voters would find LADSPA2 unacceptable, next best is XAP > which 68% would find unacceptable. > > I wasn't especially rigourous, so I may have missed, or misinterpreted > someones vote. Someone could poll the LAU list if they felt inclined. > > I think that we should give the people who's names appear on the original > .h file a veto, as were doing some radical changes to the design - though > hopefully still in the spirit of the original. It doesn't look like we'd > ever reach consensus on any other name though. > > *sigh* I guess I should invest in an anti-RSI keyboard. > > - Steve >
