[all][tc] U Cycle Naming Poll
Rico Lin <rico.lin.guanyu at gmail.com> writes:
> IMO, it's good to release the whole thing out of TC's responsibility, and
> do hope we can do these in an automatic way, so like people can just raise
> whatever cool name it's and see if that pass a CI job. :)
I agree, and in fact, that's why I wrote this process originally, to do
If we were to simply follow the steps described in  (it is a 7 step
process, each one clearly saying what should be done), I don't think we
would have so much confusion.
The only responsibilities that the TC has in that document is to set the
dates, the region, appoint the coordinator, and vote on adding "really
cool" names. That's it.
The process also says that in the rare event that a subjective
evaluation of whether a name meets the criteria needs to be made, the
coordinator should be generous. That means that the coordinator should
accept names, even if they are not certain they meet the criteria.
> As long as the whole naming process is still under TC's governance and
> words like *the process should consider potential issues of trademark*
> still in  (which I think we should specific put down as a more formal
> rule, or remove it out of that docs), I believe TCs still need to confirm
> the final list.
I disagree here. That quote is from the preamble. It is general
introductory material, but is not part of the specific step-by-step
process which should be followed. There *is* more specific detail about
that, it is step 7:
The Foundation will perform a trademark check on the winning
name. If there is a trademark conflict, then the Foundation will
proceed down the ranked list of Condorcet results until a name
without a trademark conflict is found. This will be the selected
Therefore, trademark considerations are explicitly out of the purview of
Several folks, including you, have said that they wish the process were
out of the TC's hands. The fact is that it already is, but
unfortunately people seem to keep wanting to manipulate the list before
it goes out for a vote.
I believe that the current process as written is as straightforward and
fair as we can make it and still have community involvement. This is
not the first time we, as a community, have not been able to follow it.
I think that's because not enough of us care. This election had, at
least, three coordinators, it was run late, dates were missed, and
something like 10 names were dropped from the poll before it went out,
simply due to personal preference of various folks on the TC.
Since we take particular pride in our community participation, the fact
that we have not been able or willing to do this correctly reflects very
poorly on us. I would rather that we not do this at all than do it
badly, so I think this should be the last release with a name. I've
proposed that change here: