On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward > >> >> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our > >> >> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which > >> >> are making strong progress. > >> >> > >> >> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on: > >> >> > >> >> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or > something > >> >> else > >> >> > >> >> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc. > >> >> > >> >> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two > >> >> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions > >> >> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is > >> >> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC > >> >> members to decide among the alternatives. > >> >> > >> >> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a > >> >> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions > >> >> one way or another. > >> >> > >> >> Any objections to this general approach and time frame? > >> >> > >> >> -Rob > >> >> > >> > > >> > My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting, > >> usually > >> > it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can > >> easily > >> > bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars. > >> > I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like > they > >> > do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a > good > >> > idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in > case > >> the > >> > voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline. > >> > So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change > >> > votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions. > >> > > >> > >> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate > >> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which. > >> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person > >> makes, so they can change their vote freely. > >> > >> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no > >> consensus. > >> > >> Would that work? > >> > > > > not really > > > > Could you explain your concern again? Or make a counter-proposal? > I believe I did already. Basically having a more automatized way of accounting votes, review the discussions and come to a conclusion without needing to weedout long discussions (maybe a voting on posts on relevance a la slashdot). > > -Rob > > > > >> > >> -Rob > >> > >> > -- > >> > *Alexandro Colorado* > >> > *OpenOffice.org* Español > >> > http://es.openoffice.org > >> > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6 > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > *Alexandro Colorado* > > *OpenOffice.org* Español > > http://es.openoffice.org > > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6 > > > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
