Monty Taylor wrote: > What if, to reduce stress on you, we make this 100% mechanical: > > - Anyone can propose a name > - Election officials verify that the name matches the criteria > - * note: how do we approve additive exceptions without tons of effort
Devil is in the details, as reading some of my hatemail would tell you. For example in the past I rejected "Foo" which was proposed because there was a "Foo Bar" landmark in the vicinity. The rules would have to be pretty detailed to be entirely objective. > - Marketing team provides feedback to the election officials on names > they find image-wise problematic > - The poll is created with the roster of all foundation members > containing all of the choices, but with the marketing issues clearly > labeled, like this: > > * Love > * Lumber > * Lettuce > * Lemming - marketing issues identified > > - post poll - foundation staff run trademarks checks on the winners in > order until a legally acceptable winner is found > > This way nobody is excluded, it's not a burden on you, it's about as > transparent as it could be - and there are no special privileges needed > for anyone to volunteer to be an election official. > > I'm going to continue to advocate that we use condorcet instead of a > launchpad poll because we need the ability to rank things for post-vote > trademark checks to not get weird. (also, we're working on getting off > of launchpad, so let's not re-add another connection) It's been some time since we last used a Launchpad poll. I recently used an open surveymonkey poll, which allowed crude ranking. Agree that Condorcet is better, as long as you can determine a clear list of voters. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev