Connotation analysis for Fedora Project codenames

inode0 inode0 at
Tue Mar 27 14:37:40 UTC 2012

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero at> wrote:
> I propose:
> * Continue with naming process as previously detailed, but perhaps with a
> lengthier voting period and/or a greater effort to raise awareness of this
> particular election.

Having more time to do the vetting seems like a good idea. With some
encouragement to the community perhaps it can help more with vetting
and a longer period for vetting will perhaps lessen the burden on the
Board to need to do this right this minute.

> * Allow "No Name" to be an option for the F18 cycle.

I'm always against changing things up after they have begun and really
this mostly seems to just be a negative sentiment to express which I'd
rather not see. People are free to ignore this entire process and most
people do just that now.

If someone wants "No Name" on the ballot I suggest they go nominate it fast. :)

> * Have a separate vote (I have no idea if this can be done within the same
> voting "page" or if we'd need to have two separate elections at the same
> time) for:
> ** Keep release names
> ** Abolish release names after F18.

This vote in my mind largely would be just a choice between "I want to
continue having my fun choosing names" vs. "Those people are silly and
let's stop their fun now." Most of the potential voters here really do
not have a horse in this race. Do we really want to start issue
voting? I have other issues I'd sure rather vote on but voting has
never been our solution to such things.

We have several hundred people who enjoy this enough to participate in
it. While I might think the entire process is silly there is no reason
at all I should tell them that or ruin their fun. So who else is
actually doing work here and is impacted by the process. As I see it
we have

* Red Hat Legal - they can kill this any time by saying they don't
want to do it any more.
* Fedora Project Board - they probably do the most work, organizing it
and vetting names. And if they don't want to continue enabling the
community fun that is the naming process then I'd suggest (a) work
with the community to develop a different vetting process that is
effective and less burden on the board or (b) deal with it as previous
Boards have done to bring joy to those who find this fun or (c) belly
up to it and just decide we aren't doing this any more without hiding
behind votes that have questionable meaning.
* Fedora Infrastructure - can running the voting application for this
be that large a burden?
* Fedora Marketing/Design - they can choose to frame their work around
the name selected or not.

In case I wasn't clear, I think voting to kill the release names is a
bad idea. :-)


More information about the advisory-board mailing list