<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 August 2013 10:55, inode0 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:inode0@gmail.com" target="_blank">inode0@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br></div>If "None" was an option, which I think is a terrible idea, the only<br>
thing you could conclude from it winning is the we preferred to not<br>
have a release name in this election given the names on the ballot. It<br>
would mean absolutely nothing about whether we as a community prefer<br>
to not have release names in general. I think we just recently tested<br>
that theory with a vote of questionable meaning and it was concluded<br>
that we did prefer to keep them.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Uhm no. You can't test a question with a test of questionable meaning. The test wasn't between 2 choices.. it was a test of 3 which basically allowed you to put the middle choice to either side of the equation and say that one side or the other has an absolute majority. Bringing up that vote as validation is like bringing up a cricket game to say which country is the better one... it is a false dichotomy which just keeps people flustered and doesn't "prove" anything.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In the end, I understand the reason the board doesn't want to spend time on this molehill community breaker. </div><div>Just state it as that and not that some vote proved people selected one way or another. Say instead:</div>
<div><br></div><div>If you don't want to deal with names, just don't get in the emails or vote.. because it isn't worth getting worked up over.</div><div><br></div><div>Or as Seth has said to others: Find what you want to do, and enjoy the ride. </div>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Stephen J Smoogen.<br><br></div>
</div></div>