[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] please vote for our NGO name: new vote?

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Wednesday 2009-12-16 12:05:32 +0100, Diego Biurrun encoded:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
[...]
> > Some of these objections are IMO valid, but the question is: why
> > didn't they have been arised when both the names and the voting
> > procedure was discussed?
> 
> 1) I don't currently have time to reply to every email in realtime.
> 2) The objections *did* get raised, but were promptly ignored when the
>    voting started, i.e. all the bad names were put up as candidates.
> 
> > I believe there has been a sufficient amount of time to discuss that
> > before the voting procedure began, objecting now is quite pointless,
> > also we decided to implement this voting system for the same reason
> > that to make everyone happy had proven to be impossible, also we want
> > this thing set up in a reasonable interval of time.
> 
> What's the hurry suddenly?  It's not as if a few days or weeks would
> suddenly make a difference...
> 
> > Anyway it shouldn't be impossible to review and fine-tune the winning
> > name to accomplish to some of your requests, for example:
> 
> Why not do it right in the first place?  Why repair a situation after
> breaking it when there is no need to start broken?

I'm fine with stopping the vote and refine the voting procedure.

For example we could make explicit the difference between the official
name (which has to contain "Foundation", "Organization" etc. etc. no
abbreviations) and the shortname we'll daily use when referring to it,
and specifying the domain to be used, which may default to
"lc($shortname)).org", so that a name proposal have to explicitely
define all these.

Also I'd like a more "fuzzy" vote system, when the points are not set
in base of preference order but explicitely assigned by the
voter. This would allow to address in a more fair way scenarios of the
type: "Well all these candidates are great, but I really can't say
which I prefer", or "all these candidates bloody suck, but these two
ones suck less".

Then if the most voted names have the same number of points, the
majority of the board members could have the final choice.

While the new vote procedure is decided, we could propose new names
(which have to be checked and match all the assigned criteria), then
have another week for voting.

This would delay the NGO setup by some more weeks, since this is being
discussed IIRC at least since this summer that shouldn't be an issue.

What's the other voters position?

Regards.
-- 
FFmpeg = Frenzy and Funny Mortal Pacific Ecumenical Gadget