17:01:43 <jreznik> #startmeeting future-of-release-names
17:01:43 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jun 15 17:01:43 2012 UTC.  The chair is jreznik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:43 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:03 <jreznik> #meetingname future-of-release-names
17:02:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'future-of-release-names'
17:02:22 <jreznik> #topic roll call
17:02:32 <EvilBob> If #fedora-meeting is not being used why are we here?
17:02:36 * EvilBob 
17:02:39 * Sparks is here
17:02:41 * N3LRX N3LRX
17:02:43 * rbergeron is here
17:02:56 <sagitter> sagitter is here
17:03:00 <jreznik> EvilBob: according wiki it should be used (but maybe it wasn't updated)
17:03:03 * MarkDude is here (and uppity)
17:03:05 * jreznik is here
17:03:09 <rrix> hi
17:03:11 <EvilBob> jreznik: Fair enough
17:03:43 <mizmo_> here on a cell phone
17:03:48 <smooge> is here
17:03:57 <jreznik> let's wait a few more seconds...
17:04:06 <heavensmile_> <heavensmile> is here
17:04:27 * brunowolff is here
17:04:47 <jreznik> #chair EvilBob Sparks N3LRX rbergeron sagitter MarkDude rrix mizmo_ smooge heavensmile_ brunowolff
17:04:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: EvilBob MarkDude N3LRX Sparks brunowolff heavensmile_ jreznik mizmo_ rbergeron rrix sagitter smooge
17:05:17 <jreznik> #info EvilBob Sparks N3LRX rbergeron sagitter MarkDude rrix mizmo_ smooge heavensmile_ brunowolff present
17:05:51 <MarkDude> ALL Hail the Beefy Miracle!
17:06:05 <Sparks> heh
17:06:48 <EvilBob> That means we throw ice at it?
17:07:22 * rdieter lurking a little
17:07:23 <jreznik> if anybody wants to help moderate discussion - please do :) I don't think we need a protocol but please, do not try to take over the meeting :)))
17:08:09 * jreznik is going to use nice words from the Keep release names poll
17:08:23 * MarkDude has taken some elephant downers and washed them down with whiskey to be more copacetic
17:08:28 <MarkDude> :D
17:08:39 <jreznik> The Board has recently been asked if there's value in continuing to have release names and if not, to stop naming releases.
17:08:56 <jreznik> we have a few (ex)Board members here
17:09:26 <jreznik> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/results/poll-rel-names
17:09:26 <mizmo_> third option is change process
17:09:32 <Sparks> and a new Board member that was not involved in the discussion
17:09:59 <jreznik> mizmo_: yep, the results contains it as one option...
17:10:05 <MarkDude> Correction- some of those of that voted in the Poll- were under the impression it was an *actual vote*- not a straw poll
17:10:05 <rdieter> mizmo_: yeah, the original proposal was to have that as a 3rd option.  (unfortunately I can't complain too much, I missed the meeting where that was dropped)
17:10:37 * MarkDude is for 3rd option- if a non binding vote can be used one way- it can be used other ways too
17:11:04 <jreznik> MarkDude: the meaning was more to get opinion on %subj%, not an actual vote
17:11:34 <MarkDude> jreznik, if thats how the vote was brought - SURE
17:11:37 <MarkDude> it was not tho
17:11:44 * jsmith joins late
17:11:48 <MarkDude> most of us thought it was a *real vote*
17:12:03 <rdieter> MarkDude: sorry if you thought that, but it was advertised otherwise
17:12:14 <MarkDude> Many have said there were *mistakes* on process
17:12:22 <N3LRX> I'll just say, I'm all for dropping the names entirely unless some serious changes are made to the naming process. The last few names are ridicules and their links are even worse. I'm shocked the they even passed the existing rules. If we are to keep names they should not make us a laughing stock of the Linux world.
17:12:23 <jreznik> MarkDude: we tried to find the right language
17:12:26 <MarkDude> sp thought/read
17:12:30 <heavensmile_> I think there are reasons why other distributions (such as Ubuntu and Debian) and operating systems are using a release name and a theme on thus release names .
17:12:35 <MarkDude> and FAILED
17:13:15 <sreich> start naming after dogs (apple has cats taken ;p
17:13:16 <rdieter> jreznik: /topic ? (are we still on roll call, or should we move on?)
17:13:19 <Sparks> N3LRX: We've become the laughing stock of the Linux world because of a release name?
17:13:29 <jreznik> rdieter: ah, you're right
17:13:29 <MarkDude> sparks +1
17:13:36 <brunowolff> I do think the spirit of the linking rule was broken by the "Beefy Miracle" name. That isn't necessarily bad, but I do think it indicates that the process is already changing.
17:13:44 <Sparks> I'd prefer to judge a release by other means
17:13:47 <MarkDude> brunowolff, +1
17:13:53 <jreznik> #topic the poll https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/results/poll-rel-names
17:14:13 <MarkDude> The PEOPLE spoke- with VOTES
17:14:28 <jreznik> MarkDude: yep and more in favor of release names
17:14:41 <mizmo_> I have to go in subway so will be diaconnected
17:14:52 * MarkDude wants to make clear he is happy with fine-tuning naming process
17:14:53 <jreznik> so I think the discussion should continue from this point - we want to continue with release names
17:14:55 <rdieter> As-is, I find it difficult to draw anything conclusive from the results of the poll
17:15:07 <MarkDude> rdieter+1
17:15:14 <MarkDude> the poll is moot
17:15:16 <mizmo_> poll was messed up
17:15:23 <MarkDude> mizmo_, +1
17:15:29 <EvilBob> The people... Somehow more people voted on this than voted for the release names themselves and in any election in Fedora™ history?
17:15:31 <mizmo_> poll missed 3rd option
17:15:32 <rdieter> other than to say... the issue is a wee bit contentious
17:15:37 <heavensmile_> I think it would a good idea to use a theme
17:15:44 <Sparks> Not only have people said that they want to continue naming the releases they actually voted on "Beefy Miracle" above seven others.
17:15:56 <MarkDude> Lets let reasonable people fine tune it- and then go for a vote- a REAL vote
17:15:59 <brunowolff> I think we need to look at the costs and benefits of doing this, especially if the people getting the benefits, turn out not to be the ones paying the costs.
17:16:04 <vwbusguy> Sparks, +1
17:16:08 * inode0 just notes that the voting page clearly described it as a poll
17:16:12 <MarkDude> Sparks, +1
17:16:17 <jreznik> inode0: yep
17:16:20 <rbergeron> I thin kthe poll did as best as it could given that we use range voting; otherwise it's "keep names" (v1) (v2) (v3) - vs. "get rid of names" - and you effectively split the "keep names" people up amongst multiple possibilities
17:16:22 <EvilBob> Sparks: never mind the fact that common sense would have kept it off the ballot BOTH times
17:16:25 <Sparks> brunowolff: What are the costs?
17:16:27 <MarkDude> inode0, the emails and talk were different
17:16:33 <Sparks> EvilBob: I disagree.
17:16:46 <MarkDude> the cost of taking AWAY my VOICE seems VERY HIGH
17:16:48 <jreznik> rbergeron: yep, that was the reason why we went with this poll
17:16:50 <brunowolff> Redhat has to pay for legal review. Someone needs to do work for the election.
17:16:55 <Sparks> EvilBob: It was on the ballot and people liked it and wanted it.
17:17:06 <MarkDude> Sparks, +1
17:17:22 <MarkDude> RH has money- this wont dent a billion dollars
17:17:33 <MarkDude> We are not cash strapped Canonical
17:17:42 <EvilBob> Sparks: Both times it was allowed on the ballot with a less than righteous "is a" connection
17:17:57 <EvilBob> But moving on
17:18:00 <Sparks> EvilBob: And somehow people still voted for it.
17:18:01 <jreznik> MarkDude: it's not about money and legal already stepped into the release process...
17:18:02 <MarkDude> Sorry you no longer have voice- it may cost a few dollars
17:18:12 <thm> to me the process from the initial suggestions to the 10 names to be voted on is completely intransparent. that is something that has to change imho.
17:18:22 <EvilBob> Sparks: "You can't fix stupid"
17:18:23 <chuckf> but beefy was only on the ballot because it was suggested previously (from my understanding) which means I can suggest 'funky linux' this time and perpetually into the future because I suggested it before
17:18:29 <Sparks> EvilBob: My thought exactly
17:18:32 <jreznik> thm: in what way do you think it's not transparent?
17:18:35 * inode0 hasn't heard Red Hat legal complain about doing this
17:18:37 <rbergeron> chuckf: you can't use previously used links
17:18:54 <EvilBob> chuckf: and an obscure math formula got it on the first time
17:18:55 <MarkDude> EvilBob, you are correct on the connection part- that is part of the reason I would support *fine tuning it*
17:19:13 <EvilBob> MarkDude: no, I'm wrong, just ask Sparks
17:19:18 <thm> jreznik: in that the wiki page does not reflect why or why not they are choosen as final candidates for most of them.
17:19:30 <MarkDude> For the record- Dual Core has said they would include names in a song- to make a valid connection- there are ways.....
17:19:32 <EvilBob> ;)
17:19:45 <rdieter> thm: it's simple, the names that pass the 'is a' test (vetted by board) and legal review = final list
17:19:48 <jreznik> thm: it should be available in meeting minutes
17:19:52 <MarkDude> You are not wrong EvilBob - just EVIL
17:20:00 <MarkDude> :D
17:20:01 <brunowolff> We shouldn't be wasting Redhat legal's time unless the project is getting some benefit. That benefit might just be increased morale.
17:20:05 * inode0 wonders what the question on the floor right now is?
17:20:11 * rbergeron agrees with inode0
17:20:12 <chuckf> rbergeron: but I can say I nomitated it the first time for reason x, the second time for y, the thrid time because of z
17:20:17 <MarkDude> inode0, +1
17:20:20 <EvilBob> MarkDude: and unwilling to drink the blue flavor-aid
17:20:23 <thm> rdieter: I doubt that. the list is much smaller.
17:20:24 <EvilBob> ;)
17:20:32 <rdieter> thm: sorry you doubt, but it's true
17:20:33 <jreznik> the question now is - how we understand results of the poll
17:20:40 <Sparks> brunowolff: We aren't wasting their time.  Your argument that this is a cost concern is moot as long as RH doesn't mind footing the bill.
17:20:41 <jreznik> so pls back to the topic
17:21:03 <inode0> clearly people want to keep names and that is all we can conclude IMO
17:21:10 <Sparks> inode0: +1
17:21:12 <MarkDude> inode0, +1
17:21:16 <EvilBob> jreznik: Several are unhappy with the poll, how about a second poll to please them with the three options
17:21:17 <jreznik> inode0: +1, I already mentioned it
17:21:20 <jsmith> inode0: +1
17:21:25 <sekhmet> Should perhaps release naming polls take into account *opposition* to a given name?  Apparently lots of people liked "Beefy Miracle" but I'd be willing to bet it was one of the more contentious choices.
17:21:27 <MarkDude> And some reasonable folks want to fine tune it
17:21:32 <thm> rdieter: look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Name_suggestions_for_Fedora_17 - no approval marks at all.
17:21:41 <brunowolff> Well in theory the effort spent in vetting names could be spent doing other things to benefit Fedora.
17:21:44 <Sparks> EvilBob: Why do you feel the poll is inaccurate?
17:21:47 <MarkDude> sekhmet, and one of the more AWESOME choices EVER
17:21:50 <rbergeron> rdieter: we may have failed ther e- i probably have the list in plaintext with the whys
17:22:08 <EvilBob> Sparks: ask mizmo, rdieter and the others
17:22:10 <sekhmet> MarkDude: Says you.  I've edited my /etc/issue* so I never have to see it.  I personally find it pretty embarrassing, though I'm willing to accept I'm in the minority.
17:22:17 <jreznik> rbergeron: we have and yes, we constantly failing updating wiki but it's in gobby log
17:22:23 <Sparks> The poll seemed pretty straight forward to me
17:22:25 <rbergeron> oh for F17
17:22:30 <EvilBob> Sparks: Several have brought up that the poll was flawed, I was not one of them
17:22:35 <Sparks> oh
17:22:35 * MarkDude thinks some of this is folks with NO sense of humor
17:22:45 <MarkDude> Being embarrased by a cartoon hotdog
17:22:49 <MarkDude> its a hotdog
17:22:51 <brunowolff> Also enumerating what benefits we get (or want to get) by naming releases might guide us to a better process for generating them.
17:23:03 <Sparks> I'm curious why people think the poll was bad.
17:23:13 <inode0> the poll was perfect (keep them or get rid of them) - that is not unclear
17:23:16 <MarkDude> Sparks, there are 3 options
17:23:16 <jreznik> #info people clearly want to keep names (a conclusion from the poll)
17:23:21 <MarkDude> the poll had only 2
17:23:27 <rdieter> Sparks: personally, I wanted a 3rd option: change the process
17:23:37 <smooge> You can't do 3 options with the tools we had.
17:23:39 <Sparks> MarkDude: The question was "do you want to keep naming releases".  Yes or no
17:23:43 <EvilBob> "<rdieter> mizmo_: yeah, the original proposal was to have that as a 3rd option.  (unfortunately I can't complain too much, I missed the meeting where that was dropped)"
17:23:56 <rdieter> smooge: bah, we vote on elections with >2 candidates all the time
17:23:59 <MarkDude> Hell Yes to keeing names!
17:24:03 <inode0> ok, have another poll now
17:24:09 <Sparks> You now want the answer to a different question
17:24:27 <inode0> the proposed original poll with 3 options was written so none applied to me personally
17:24:32 <smooge> rdieter, that is different. You are asking a yes/no question and wanting a yes/no answer.. having a yes/no/yes option to does not work on range voting
17:24:34 <jreznik> keep current process/change the process? as it's clear we want to stick with release names?
17:24:44 <rbergeron> If some people want release names, and others don't, the vote is clear that a group of people want them in some form to continues, and others don't.
17:24:46 <rdieter> smooge: true, but I still think it would've been better
17:24:53 <Sparks> smooge: Correct
17:25:02 <MarkDude> People that dont like names- DONT have to use them
17:25:04 <smooge> rdieter, no.. you would get a split result with maybe no being stronger than the otehrs
17:25:08 <Sparks> So if you want to do another poll you have to ask a different question
17:25:08 <MarkDude> they have that freedom
17:25:10 <smooge> MarkDude, please stop
17:25:15 <smooge> One topic at a time
17:25:19 <jreznik> Sparks: yep
17:25:20 <Sparks> MarkDude: +1
17:25:33 <rbergeron> if you further split that group that want new release names into multiple voting options, vs. one group who wants to rid of them, the option for NO inevitably gets more votes than the people with divided opionions on keeping release names, but differ on how to do it.
17:25:46 <rdieter> so, personally, I wanted to be able to see what support "change the process" had.  lumping it together means we may never know really
17:25:46 <MarkDude> rbergeron, +1
17:25:51 <jreznik> rbergeron: +1
17:25:55 <EvilBob> Ok look at the numbers this way, with the three choices, keep names, change how we name and drop names, if you divide the keep names with potential change in half, each getting 50% of the vote then they lose to dropping names.
17:25:58 <heavensmile_> rbergeron: +1
17:26:01 <rbergeron> so instead of 550 vs. 384, we could have had 100 vs. 150 vs. 300 vs. 384.
17:26:07 <EvilBob> I know many do not want to see that possibility
17:26:15 <MarkDude> EvilBob, +1
17:26:24 <smooge> rdieter, in that case you have two polls. poll one does yes/no . Poll two does A or B.
17:26:34 <rbergeron> which means you would know that many want to keep release names, but no wins out because the three yes groups couldn't come to consensus on the best way to do so.
17:26:42 <Sparks> EvilBob: You are speculating
17:26:59 <EvilBob> in FACT I was one of the ones at the meeting that brought the two "keep names and change process" items in to one option
17:27:00 <Sparks> EvilBob: And that would still mean we would be naming releases
17:27:26 <rdieter> smooge: I guess we can agree to disagree on whether having 2 vs 3 options would've had value.  I see little point in doing another poll now
17:27:28 <EvilBob> Sparks: You will be naming release names as long as you want
17:27:33 <brunowolff> It also isn't clear if the no votes are find no value in release names or actively dislike them.
17:27:44 <EvilBob> Sparks: nothing, no poll at least will change that
17:27:46 <jreznik> from the poll it's clear - we have a starting point - keep the names...
17:28:11 <rdieter> jreznik: agreed, that's about all we can tell (at best)
17:28:21 <heavensmile_> jreznik +1
17:28:23 <jreznik> rdieter: from the poll
17:28:28 <Sparks> jreznik: And I would speculate that some people want to change the way we name the releases
17:28:29 <MarkDude> jreznik, +1
17:28:33 <EvilBob> Sparks: I some how feel you are on the attack towards me today, I respectfully ask you to back off a little
17:28:49 <Sparks> EvilBob: I'm not and I will not if you keep being anti-everything.
17:29:05 <jreznik> and we hit a few issues with release names during f17 time
17:29:06 <EvilBob> Sparks: Go drink some more punch
17:29:18 <jreznik> Sparks, EvilBob: guys, please :)
17:29:21 * inode0 thinks that decision to keep the names is enough - those doing the work to make naming happen can decide details
17:29:41 <MarkDude> inode0, +1
17:29:44 <Sparks> inode0: +1
17:29:46 <heavensmile_> I think that using a theme as some other distors (Debain, Ubuntu) are doing is a good idea
17:29:58 <inode0> My question is does the Board want to have less of a role in that process going forward?
17:30:18 * MarkDude thinks the board should steer clear
17:30:21 <inode0> Does the community need to organize something to replace part or all of what the Board has done in the past?
17:30:24 <MarkDude> A trusted group fine tunes it- maybe Design team-
17:30:38 <brunowolff> I think we should step back and first note what we are trying to accomplish with release names before deciding on how we should choose them.
17:30:39 <jreznik> MarkDude: not only design team, but legal too
17:30:44 <jsmith> But it's about more than just design (no offense to the design team)
17:30:45 <Sparks> What does the Board do, exactly, with this?
17:30:51 <jwb> vet the names
17:31:02 <jwb> basically narrow down obvious ones legal would reject
17:31:06 <MarkDude> Design is full of reasonable folks- with a sense of humor
17:31:07 <jsmith> Sparks: They check to see that the names follow the rules, and look for obvious copyright or trademark conflicts
17:31:16 * inode0 actually thinks the Board should remain involved if they can
17:31:17 <jsmith> MarkDude: And the Board isn't?
17:31:22 <Sparks> IMO, if they meet the rules and they pass legal then all the Board should do is put them to a public vote.
17:31:33 <MarkDude> jsmith, not what I meant :)
17:31:37 <inode0> because as jsmith points out it is about far more than theming
17:31:40 <N3LRX> nobody checked if bm met the rules.
17:31:41 <rdieter> since release names require legal vetting anyway, the board being involved is a good fit.  speaking as a former board member, I found it an honor and privlege.
17:31:42 <Sparks> jsmith: Yeah, and someone needs to do that work.
17:31:43 <jreznik> inode0: yep, Board should be involved but we need advise from other teams of fedora
17:31:59 <Sparks> N3LRX: It did... it was just a weird variation on the rules.
17:32:02 <jsmith> N3LRX: Actually, the Board did.  I remember, because I was out that meeting, and was a little surprised to be honest.
17:32:07 <jreznik> N3LRX: board and legal did
17:32:38 <heavensmile_> I feel very strog for a specfic theme
17:32:49 <mizmo_> ambassadors should be involved bc poor name choices affect them
17:32:52 * MarkDude suggest BBQ for theme
17:33:00 <N3LRX> how do you connect a "cartoon hotdog" with a mathematical equation?
17:33:01 <inode0> Sparks: we can't send 400 names to Red Hat legal - we need more vetting
17:33:07 <MarkDude> mizmo_, really?
17:33:15 <jreznik> it's board, design, legal, ambassadors...
17:33:20 <Sparks> inode0: True
17:33:23 <pjones> N3LRX: cartoon hotdog was not the name, just a graphical theme
17:33:29 <MarkDude> Leonidas brother killed my ancestors
17:33:37 <MarkDude> True story
17:33:40 <heavensmile_> Specifically I like the suggestion to name each fedora after a sea bird,  I like the subtle connection between the sea and the blue brand image  that fedora have. Both the sea and birds represent freedom which is a key  value within the fedora community. Therefore I think that we could start  by naming each fedora release after sea birds and when we have used all seabirds we can do a transition to birds in general.
17:33:47 <jreznik> MarkDude: and we are back to the connotation analysis....
17:33:55 <mizmo_> yes talk to tatica about explaining beefy markdude
17:34:21 * rbergeron is pretty sure markdude does plenty of explaining on his own at multiple events
17:34:23 <MarkDude> mizmo_, I can answer that- when the group is ready to move to that point
17:34:26 <heavensmile_> birds==freedom
17:34:32 <jreznik> heavensmile_: in general is the problem - generic names means problem to legal because of trademarks
17:34:38 <MarkDude> tatica is mistaken in her mktg imho
17:34:40 * rbergeron notes that Fedora got nothing but compliments and enthusiasm about it at SELF this past weekend
17:34:50 <rdieter> rbergeron: fun
17:34:57 <mizmo_> tatica viewpoint is why I bring up ambassadors
17:35:15 <Sparks> rbergeron: +1
17:35:17 <mizmo_> robin in the south of the us
17:35:25 * MarkDude got great reaction at UDS also
17:35:38 <jwb> i got quizzical looks and questions at an even in Detroit
17:35:41 <mizmo_> navel gazing
17:35:44 <MarkDude> mizmo_, - understood- I am a Mentor
17:36:04 <jwb> they were appreciative of the hot dogs being given out though
17:36:24 * rdieter wonders what about the *current* process prevents anyone, esp ambassadors, from participating in the process ?
17:36:33 <jreznik> jwb: we gave away 350 at linuxtag and 250 here in brno
17:36:39 * rbergeron is pretty sure that Beefy's presence helped us raise a good chunk of change and a lot of collected food at the food drive as well but I suppose that's neither here nor there
17:37:10 <mizmo_> ppl who drink alcohol appreciate free drinks greatly but they exclude a lot of ppl from participating esp younger crowd
17:37:16 <EvilBob> rdieter: the problem is the lack of common sense when looking at the rules
17:37:19 <MarkDude> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2424094/Jono%20Cm.jpg funny names got Fedora to the forefront of Ubuntu- thats Jono Bacon saluting the Beefy Miracle in costume
17:37:23 <chuckf> "Here's a free hot dog, do you like our theme?"
17:37:33 <mizmo_> iow navel gazing
17:37:38 <pjones> rdieter: well, it weights everybody (except the board and legal) equally, which is fair but not necessarily optimal.
17:37:38 <jreznik> that's always the problem with controversial stuff - you got great reception but also the bad one
17:38:07 <MarkDude> jreznik, yes vanilla is always safer- if boring
17:38:13 <rdieter> EvilBob: we can agree to disagree on how to characterize it, fair enough?  I prefer to think that what was done without bias.
17:38:15 <MarkDude> we are an edgy project
17:38:20 <jreznik> mizmo_: we hit the same problem with hot dog - a few people were offended...
17:38:50 <mizmo_> rdieter my participation has never led to satisfactory stoppage of the bleeding, we need a higher level solution than just open participation
17:38:52 <MarkDude> We have vegetarians that LOVE the hotdog- we have veggie dogs too
17:39:22 <pjones> EvilBob: attempting to use common sense while playing rules-lawyer is usually an /incredibly/ bad plan.
17:39:26 <MarkDude> Our release event next week has people showing up due to many reasons- part of which is the name- people like humor
17:39:30 <Sparks> MarkDude: Are you saying that Beefy is actually a veggie dog?!?
17:39:31 <EvilBob> Who cares about the damn hotdog, this is about the future
17:39:33 <rdieter> ok, so... how best to encourage participation
17:39:33 <pjones> EvilBob: if for no other reason than you'll usually be the only one doing so
17:39:46 <MarkDude> Sparks, Beefy is all powerful
17:39:51 <mizmo> rdieter, participation won't help if its a free for all, it will make it worse
17:39:58 <mizmo> what are we trying to do with fedora?
17:40:00 <MarkDude> and for the record- there is a tofu Miracle
17:40:07 <mizmo> do we just want to keep our in-group happy? or do we want to spread free software?
17:40:11 <Sparks> heh
17:40:18 <mizmo> if we want to spread free software, ridiculous names normal people cannot understand are working against us
17:40:19 <rdieter> mizmo: both :)
17:40:21 <jreznik> mizmo: spread free software
17:40:28 <EvilBob> This is turning in to a colossal waste of time
17:40:29 <MarkDude> mizmo - I disagreee
17:40:35 <Sparks> Have we seen a decrease in participants/participation in Fedora since the naming of the release?
17:40:36 <mizmo> we can continue the ridiculous names and completely de-empahsize them and hide them, maybe only visible on a terminal when you log in
17:40:38 * MarkDude wants people with humor to join
17:40:38 <jreznik> mizmo: +1 (and I really like fun)
17:40:39 <jwb> EvilBob, for once... you and i agree!
17:40:47 <smooge> Sparks, yes.
17:40:48 <mizmo> but we cannot continue with 'beefy miracle' headlines in the tech press and expect to be taken seriously
17:40:54 <jwb> this meeting is going nowhere.  get an agenda already
17:40:54 <rbergeron> jwb: lol
17:40:56 <heavensmile_> why not use a theme?
17:41:03 <MarkDude> Some of my new manatess cited the hotdog as a reason to join
17:41:04 <EvilBob> jwb: Ok quick, who is changing their mind first?
17:41:06 <EvilBob> ;)
17:41:08 <mizmo> awesome developers i would love to be part of our community hvae told me they think fedora is for kids or people living in their basement and want nothing to do with it bc of the names
17:41:17 <MarkDude> So if we loose those without humor- its cool
17:41:19 <jreznik> jwb: you are right :)
17:41:21 <mizmo> i love th ebeefy miracle, dont get me wrong
17:41:24 <mizmo> but it's an "in joke"
17:41:28 <mizmo> and open source doesn't need any more in groups
17:41:35 <mizmo> its hard enough as it is to get involved with open source
17:41:37 <heavensmile_> mizo +1
17:41:47 <EvilBob> mizmo: +1
17:41:54 <jreznik> mizmo: +1
17:41:54 <MarkDude> mizmo, did you see the pic of Jono- from another group wearing hotdog suit?
17:41:56 * rbergeron notes that beefy miracle got outstanding reviews from much of the press - in fact, most of it was incredibly positive
17:41:59 <mizmo> we can have fun with beefy AND have a respectable release, yes
17:42:01 <MarkDude> Thats not in our group
17:42:04 <rbergeron> and please note that i don't confuse "press" with "people who blog"
17:42:06 <mizmo> MarkDude, yes and i wonder if Jono laughs with us or at us
17:42:10 <EvilBob> Who cares about the damn hotdog, this is about the future
17:42:14 <EvilBob> Move on
17:42:17 <mizmo> rbergeron, pcworld?
17:42:19 * MarkDude is freinds with him
17:42:27 <MarkDude> I can give you the answer
17:42:46 <MarkDude> He likes that we vote and thinks that some here may have no humor
17:42:46 <EvilBob> pat yourselves on the back about the hot dog on someone else's time
17:43:00 <EvilBob> we are here to make the naming process better
17:43:01 <rdieter> EvilBob: some seem to be using the hotdog as an example of what *not* to do, and seems that conclusion is far from a given.  though I doubt anyone's minds are going to change, here.  so yeah, move on++
17:43:01 * MarkDude can give you his number in PM if you like mizmo
17:43:16 <jreznik> let's starts with pros/cons of current release names scheme, if we want to move forward
17:43:34 <MarkDude> +1
17:43:35 <gholms> jreznik: +1
17:43:42 <mizmo> con: really difficult to come up with a name that follows the rules. some people try to make a name suggestion their first contribution to fedora and are very disappointed when 99% of the time they are rejected
17:43:47 <heavensmile_> I see the current process as broken
17:43:51 <mizmo> con: "is a" rule is weird
17:44:06 <mizmo> con: reading the names of releases in a list, they are all over the place and pretty weird
17:44:07 <rdieter> pro: has a good history and legacy in the project
17:44:11 <jreznik> "is a" rule is difficult to understand
17:44:23 <brunowolff> con: Naming costs Redhat legal time
17:44:23 <EvilBob> "is a" has provided some interesting results
17:44:23 * MarkDude is retarded
17:44:24 <Sparks> EvilBob: What would you recommend to change the rules?
17:44:30 <gholms> These sound like great #info items for the meeting minutes.
17:44:31 <mizmo> con: the people who were involved in the original history of the naming process have completely disengaged and admitted its gone to far
17:44:33 <jreznik> pro: it's fun and makes people participants of release naming process
17:44:37 <MarkDude> and somehow understands *is a * rule
17:44:44 <jreznik> #chair gholms
17:44:44 <zodbot> Current chairs: EvilBob MarkDude N3LRX Sparks brunowolff gholms heavensmile_ jreznik mizmo_ rbergeron rrix sagitter smooge
17:44:46 <rbergeron> mizmo: i don't recall anything negative from pcworld, but it's neither here nor there
17:44:47 <bcotton> pro: can be a good way to engage new contributors
17:44:49 <rbergeron> gholms: indeed
17:44:51 <brunowolff> con: Naming costs time of people needed to run election
17:44:52 <jreznik> gholms: can I ask you for #infos?
17:44:54 <mizmo> rbergeron, "beefy miracle" was in the article
17:45:02 <jreznik> my touchpad is horrible...
17:45:04 <pjones> brunowolff: the fact that there's monetary cost associated with choosing a name is going to be true of any naming scheme
17:45:13 <gholms> jreznik: FYI:  one doesn't have to be chaired to use #info. ;)
17:45:17 <rdieter> brunowolff: I think we've already discounted the option of not doing release names,  I think we're aiming at either keeping the status quo or simply changing the process
17:45:27 <mizmo> con: its an easy way to off-put new contributors when the opaque 'is a' process stumps them and their contrbution is rejected
17:45:29 <rbergeron> mizmo: i don't follow
17:45:29 <jreznik> gholms: doesn't matter :) just I need help :)))
17:45:29 * rdieter could be wrong tho
17:45:34 <mizmo> rbergeron, we can take it offline
17:45:34 <gholms> #topic Pros and cons of the current naming process
17:45:36 <rbergeron> they named it by name?
17:45:37 <EvilBob> pjones: Yeah the only "no cost option" is to drop names
17:45:40 <mizmo> yes
17:45:44 <MarkDude> Pro- its a start of a talk with others- we vote on sillyh names- that opens up to talk of serious votes- like boards- and real VOICE
17:45:49 <MarkDude> its a foot in the door
17:45:50 <EvilBob> So it's a "push" in reality
17:45:51 <rbergeron> most of them do... but yes, we can
17:45:56 <mizmo> rbergeron, http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/256388/fedora_linux_17_beefy_miracle_makes_its_official_debut.html
17:46:06 <gholms> #info con: difficult to come up with a name that follows the "is a" rules
17:46:17 <MarkDude> EvilBob, no cost option? https://plus.google.com/u/0/105095769731159704550/posts/DDzqh2meUyq
17:46:18 <brunowolff> pro/con Naming can be used for theming. This can be either good or bad depending on the chosen name.
17:46:30 * MarkDude has an albatross at the ready- can get more
17:46:33 <gholms> #info con:  reading the names of releases in a list, they are all over the place and pretty weird
17:46:39 <gholms> #info pro: has a good history and legacy in the project
17:46:52 <gholms> #info con: Naming costs Redhat legal time
17:47:05 * rdieter thingks that con should not be included
17:47:10 <rbergeron> mizmo: i think we're talking to different points, lol
17:47:11 <rdieter> it's true of any scheme
17:47:20 <gholms> #info con: the people who were involved in the original history of the naming process have completely disengaged and admitted its gone to far
17:47:27 <Sparks> gholms: Red Hat legal time is a null argument unless RH says it is a problem
17:47:27 <MarkDude> #con the humorless win if we remove voice
17:47:28 <mizmo> con: no consistency or common thread to the names makes them difficult to understand
17:47:33 <gholms> #info pro: it's fun and makes people participants of release naming process
17:47:38 <mizmo> con: obscure rule leads to really obscure names that are hard to pronounce
17:47:39 <gholms> #info pro: can be a good way to engage new contributors
17:47:46 <gholms> #info con: Naming costs time of people needed to run election
17:47:50 <mizmo> con: obscure rule leads to obscure names that are hard to produce artwork for
17:47:51 <MarkDude> understand? Rly?
17:47:57 <EvilBob> The name has never been about humor until "now"
17:48:00 <gholms> mizmo: Would you please #info those? :)
17:48:07 <sekhmet> MarkDude: Do you really think it's productive to dismiss "humorless" people from the discussion?
17:48:09 <pjones> EvilBob: no, that's outright false
17:48:13 <mizmo> #info con: making fedora's name into a joke makes people think that fedora is a joke
17:48:18 <pjones> EvilBob: back before it was public voting it was *entirely* about humor
17:48:22 <spevack_> Sparks: i disagree.  If we stopped asking RH legal to do release names, we could fill Pam's time with some other Fedora-related issue that might be more important or strategic
17:48:31 <EvilBob> pjones: How was laughlin about "humor"
17:48:31 <gholms> #info con: its an easy way to off-put new contributors when the opaque 'is a' process stumps them and their contrbution is rejected
17:48:32 <MarkDude> sekhmet, truth is TRUTH by any name
17:48:33 <Sparks> spevack_: Like?
17:48:35 <rbergeron> #info con: the pool of names that would likely pass legal muster is ever-shrinking - everyone seems to have a business with an apple app with names
17:48:51 <Sparks> spevack_: Has RH said that we are taking up too much of their time?
17:48:54 <pjones> EvilBob: we were laughing at people trying to figure out what the names meant.
17:49:04 <gholms> #info pro: its a start of a talk with others- we vote on silly names- that opens up to talk of serious votes- like boards- and real VOICE.  It's a foot in the door.
17:49:04 <spevack_> Other trademark stuff?  I don't know what's pending right now, but there's always been a backlog of Fedora stuff that we wished there was more time for
17:49:07 <rbergeron> spevack_: assuming that it is still trademark-related :)
17:49:08 <chuckf> MarkDude: what about those who have humor but just a different type of humor, do those count?
17:49:17 <spevack_> As of last year, I hadn't heard any complaints
17:49:22 <gholms> #info Can be used for theming
17:49:29 <sekhmet> MarkDude: You're attacking the character of people who disagree with you, not the actual points.  That's just not helpful.
17:49:37 <MarkDude> #info potential new contribs are excited at having input on names - and not being told everything
17:49:56 <MarkDude> sekhmet, I am mocking the humorless
17:50:00 <mizmo> #info con: names like 'sulphur' can't be used for theming
17:50:00 <pjones> excited?  I have my doubts.
17:50:11 <MarkDude> chuckf, those are the people that should help fine tune
17:50:28 <inode0> were names used for theming prior to F7 or later?
17:50:31 <sekhmet> MarkDude: Regardless, it's an ad hominem attack, and not contributing anything productive to the dialogue.  Stick to your actual points rather than insulting people on the other side of the debate, please.
17:50:34 <MarkDude> folks that dont fell like VICTIMS of a spherical cow
17:50:36 <EvilBob> MarkDude: How can we?
17:50:40 <gholms> Sparks: I'm just recording stuff; sorry.
17:50:40 <spevack_> inode0: not really
17:50:56 <Sparks> gholms: +1
17:51:06 * inode0 thinks theming can use some more suitable vehicle to achieve their desired ends
17:51:11 <pjones> inode0: only kinda sorta.  often they were used to theme the character of the release announcement.
17:51:20 <pjones> but that's about it
17:51:37 <MarkDude> limiting those WITHOUT humor is one of my main points- I DONT like vanilla
17:51:45 <EvilBob> MarkDude: no one can get anything done here because some have a sense of "humor" and no sense of restraint so a meeting can take place.
17:52:09 <jreznik> MarkDude: the problem is - humor is cultural thing
17:52:14 <bcotton> MarkDude: people have different senses of humor. they're not invalid because they don't align with yours
17:52:37 <EvilBob> pjones: I am not opposed to taking the naming back internal to Red Hat and the developers that work on Fedora™ and/or upstream bits.
17:52:40 <jreznik> #info con: release name can offend people from different cultures/sense of humor etc.
17:52:57 <mizmo> inode0, they weren't. the tie between name and art theme began with 8.
17:52:57 <MarkDude> Embarrassed at a name? Dont use it- we DO have numbers
17:53:21 <mizmo> MarkDude, i can't control whether or not the entire rest of the project chooses to make an embarassing name front and center. so if you're embarassed by it, your solution doesn't work.
17:53:28 <pjones> EvilBob: tbh I'd rather not have one.  The only thing they've ever really meant to me was extra confusion in bugzilla.
17:53:48 <rdieter> please, let's get past the topic of humor.  embarrasment, or mention of hotdogs.  not productive.
17:53:53 * N3LRX thinks MarkDude needs to grow up and act more professionally and stop the personal attacks on those who disagree.
17:54:09 <MarkDude> #info con taking away my VOICE is not good mojo
17:54:21 * MarkDude gets uppity at potential loss of a right
17:54:39 <EvilBob> pjones: Personally I feel that the value has completely diminished, so I guess we agree there.
17:55:20 * MarkDude is willing to discuss answer mizmo 's earlier question- when we get to it
17:55:23 <jreznik> to move forward - what about to collect the proposals of alternative release names schemes? and then try to compare it to the current one?
17:55:35 <MarkDude> +1
17:55:57 <gholms> #idea Collect proposals of alternative release-naming schemes
17:56:06 <mizmo> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_Fedora_Codename_Theme
17:56:17 <mizmo> this wiki page has an overview of other software projects and how they choose release names
17:56:32 <jreznik> mizmo: nice
17:56:33 <rdieter> given the list of cons, I personally have trouble thinking of alternatives that don't suffer from a lot of the same problems.  thank heavens most folks are more creative.
17:56:35 <mizmo> and a list of suggestions, some which have already been filtered by legal, on themes and possible names in each theme
17:56:35 <brunowolff> Please include some idea of how the name will be used in the proposals (in particular whether it would be used in theming).
17:57:03 <jreznik> rdieter: you're probably right but we have to move forward :)
17:57:10 <MarkDude> The board should either make a decision or hand to tohers to do so. Are we really gonna spend more time being revisionists?
17:57:17 * inode0 think Beefy Miracle was a big plus last week, but never saw any benefit from Verne at events - things look differently depending where you sit
17:57:23 <jreznik> hmm, Firefox has release names...
17:57:48 * MarkDude would like to answer mizmos question- please let me know when it is proper to do so
17:57:57 <brunowolff> I'd really like to see the design team be able to veto names if names are going to be used for theming.
17:58:29 <jsmith> brunowolff: We've already told them that they don't have to base the theme on the release name -- it's just one piece of inspiration they can choose to use.
17:58:40 * jsmith doesn't know how to make it any more clear than that
17:58:45 <pjones> brunowolff: I'm not completely sure why the two must be tied together, though I admit it can be nice to have something to take direction from
17:58:53 <jreznik> jsmith: +1
17:58:55 <EvilBob> Sorry I got dropped out there
17:59:09 <mizmo> jsmith, yet somehow it becomes a big issue if the artwork doesnt relate to the name. so that doesn't solve the problem. -1
17:59:10 <EvilBob> pjones: on a personal note... I'm still a little pissed that Fedora 10 was not codenamed Red Hat Linux 10... apparently Legal has no sense of humor... ;)
17:59:25 <mizmo> jsmith, it's like placing a bowl of chocolate in front of me when i'm trying to lose 5 pounds and telling me i don't need to eat it.
17:59:28 <pjones> EvilBob: huh.
17:59:41 <sekhmet> I still think one helpful change to the process would be able to lodge a vote in opposition to names.  Extreme dislike should play a role in the voting as much as liking, IMO.  Contentious names don't do anybody good - when in the past has Fedora had this level of ire over a release name?
17:59:56 <inode0> it isn't an issue to me whether the artwork matches the theme or not (it doesn't this release)
18:00:00 <MarkDude> jsmith, +1
18:00:09 <mizmo> sekhmet +1
18:00:23 <rdieter> sekhmet: -1, range voting effectively already does that imo,   who cares if its 0..8 or -4...4
18:00:35 <mizmo> inode0, it is an issue to enough people that it causes unnecessary drama + heartache
18:00:39 <EvilBob> sekhmet: Never that I am aware of, BUT for me personally it's not only about the name but how it became an option.
18:00:47 <MarkDude> more administravia? -1
18:00:51 <pjones> rdieter: eh, I don't see how.  voting 0 to everything is numerically the same as not voting.
18:01:01 <inode0> this fuss is doing the same for a much wider part of the project I think
18:01:02 <brunowolff> Well it would be nice to explicitly note in the proposals that theming is not tied to the release name in proposals if that is the intention.
18:01:04 <pjones> rdieter: not to endorse the idea, mind you
18:01:07 <MarkDude> sekhmet, -1
18:01:11 <jreznik> 1 hour - let's try to summarize it now
18:01:11 <rdieter> pjones: means you don't dislike anything more than the other either
18:01:33 <gholms> #info Current policy is that the design team may use the release name as inspiration, but is not required to do so
18:01:34 <MarkDude> rdieter+1
18:01:57 <mizmo> brunowolff, we've already gotten a lot of complaints that fireworks don't have anything to do with hotdogs
18:01:58 <pjones> rdieter: means you don't dislike anything /on the list/ more than the other things /on the list/, yes.
18:02:31 <inode0> mizmo: people are disappointed we bailed out from the fun program for one release
18:02:32 <jreznik> mizmo: you would get a lot of complaints if it does
18:02:33 <mizmo> i mean, if we start getting theme name suggestions that could be cards in "cards against humanity" being able to -10 them would be cool
18:02:48 <sekhmet> rdieter: I don't know, I think -4 to 4 is more useful, actually.  The standard kind of "strongly dislike to strongly like" scale, rather than just "no opinion to strong like"
18:02:56 <inode0> but, yeah, people would complain either way
18:02:57 <mizmo> jreznik, right, so basically my team is put in a situation they can't win. and some of the comments against us are particularly vicious
18:03:11 <mizmo> simply saying 'the theme doesn't have to come from the name' has never solved that problem
18:03:16 <N3LRX> sekhmet, +1 on the -4 to 4
18:03:17 <sekhmet> rdieter: The defaults set right at the middle with "no opinion."  I'd bet that contentious names would get eliminated via that change
18:03:22 <mizmo> sekhmet +1
18:03:33 <inode0> well then you should disentangle the two and when there isn't an expectation no one will be bothered
18:03:33 <rdieter> that's just perception, but ok,  the math is the same. meh
18:03:35 <MarkDude> #info - it is IMPOSSIBLE to make 100% of people happy- it CANT be done
18:03:44 <mizmo> rdieter, that's how UX design works ;-)
18:03:53 <MarkDude> sekhmet, -1
18:03:59 <gholms> #idea Change range voting from 0..N to -N/2..N/2, default to 0
18:04:06 <sekhmet> rdieter: I don't think it is the same, really...  Most names that people aren't voting for would remain at zero (no opinion), rather than currently where it's all the way down at the bottom of the scale
18:04:08 <mizmo> MarkDude, but it is possible to not put people into positions where hate is shoveled on top of them release after release
18:04:11 * rdieter doesn't care then.  refactor the numbers if it makes people feel better. it's the same to me
18:04:24 <misc> +1 to rdieter
18:04:32 <brunowolff> Would the design team prefer to consistently base theming on the game if they could veto names before the final choice (election) was done?
18:04:44 <sekhmet> rdieter: Right now any name not-voted-for gets the same measure of downward "weight."  If people can choose a value below zero, you'd provide more balance
18:04:48 <sekhmet> Again just IMO, of course
18:04:55 <MarkDude> #info Elealnor Roosevelt- No one can make you feel inferior- --- without yourslef
18:04:55 <EvilBob> sekhmet: I agree
18:05:33 <misc> sekhmet: we can redo the computation and remove -4 to each vote, and see how it goes ?
18:05:40 <MarkDude> HATE? Rly?
18:06:01 <Sparks> sekhmet: Mathematically speaking, -4 to +4 is the same as 0 to 8.  There will be no change in the outcomes.
18:06:02 <mizmo> brunowolff, if i can pick between pork ribs, steak, hamburgers, and bowl of shrimp when i'm vegetarian, veto power does me no good
18:06:17 <sekhmet> Sparks: Mathematically, yes, but people's voting patterns would change significantly
18:06:27 <mizmo> brunowolff, the quality across the names is low enough that i dont think veto power would help, even though i appreciate your suggesting the idea
18:06:31 <sekhmet> Sparks: Well, *might* change significantly, anyway.  :)
18:06:33 <jreznik> hey, as I said - let's try to summarize it now - I'd like to close meeting in a few minutes :) we are over one hour and it leads to nowhere but I think we have a few arguments to talk about -> ml...
18:06:35 <MarkDude> re-arranging deck chair on the Titanic- can we include gold stars for names we *really like*
18:06:42 <EvilBob> jreznik: you asked for a summary, wrap it up, there is nothing to summarize other than "Fun, Sense of Humor, Hot Dogs!"
18:06:46 <gholms> Sparks: If the default remains at 0 then it is more than a cosmetic change.
18:06:50 <mizmo> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_Fedora_Codename_Theme  <= some real work and research was put into this, could we not get something productive from this?
18:06:51 <Sparks> sekhmet: I doubt it.  If I don't like something I give it a 0 which is the same as your -4
18:06:54 <Sparks> gholms: correct
18:07:03 <mizmo> we've had a lot of contributions from across our community to this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_Fedora_Codename_Theme
18:07:03 * MarkDude is STILL waiting to answer the question from earlier
18:07:15 <jreznik> EvilBob: than it's sad we ended in circle
18:07:19 <MarkDude> Trying to be patient
18:07:25 <Sparks> mizmo: I think we should definitely use the suggestions.
18:07:30 <gholms> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_Fedora_Codename_Theme
18:07:34 <jreznik> I expected it but we have to move forward - let the names be or really move forward
18:07:35 <MarkDude> Was the question only rhetorical?
18:07:37 <gholms> Oops
18:07:41 <gholms> #undo
18:07:41 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x2d6415d0>
18:08:07 <sekhmet> Sparks: So the opinion on that suggestion seems to range from "it will have no effect" to "it might provide some benefit"
18:08:11 <gholms> MarkDude: I can't recall what it was.
18:08:11 <sekhmet> Are there reasons NOT to do it?
18:08:17 <rbergeron> I think we we would use those suggestions if it was decided that having themes going forward is better than a methodology that we use today or some other methodology
18:08:23 * MarkDude wants to answer question on LATAM and marketing
18:08:26 <jreznik> rbergeron: yep
18:09:01 <MarkDude> And false assumptions.
18:09:04 <mizmo> rbergeron, it speaks well to the suggestion, tho, that so many other software projects use release name themes
18:09:27 <mizmo> people get excited about the android names. and the ubuntu ones. it seems to work effectively for them.
18:09:29 <Sparks> sekhmet: Oh, sorry, I read that incorrectly.  No, I don't think there will be any benefit.  You'll see the numbers reduced and some will fall into negative territory.    You're just shifting the range of outcomes not outcomes.
18:09:47 <MarkDude> gholms, it was in regards to tatica having a hard time using name theme in region
18:09:49 <inode0> people get excited in our community about choosing our names, unlike those other examples
18:09:55 <sekhmet> Sparks: But IMO (and perhaps others' too), voting patterns might very well change.  Yours might not, but I bet mine would.
18:09:56 <Sparks> sekhmet: I don't think there is a reason not to do it just as there isn't a reason to do it.
18:10:05 <rdieter> we have a 'theme', it's just apparently not well understood.  so yeah.  I like the "Hat Styles" theme.
18:10:11 <gholms> Sparks: Are you asserting that changing the default from the bottom of the scale to the center will not change the outcome?
18:10:15 <mizmo> inode0, right. so we'd bring democracy to the android/ubuntu style of theming
18:10:45 <jreznik> rdieter: theme is in place but the "as is" link is really difficult to understand to for a lot of people
18:10:47 <inode0> for me the key to any change that it be open enough that the community outside of this discussion still has fun doing it
18:10:51 <mizmo> rdieter, sulphur => leonidas => camridge => goddard => beefy miracle is NOT a theme
18:10:58 <misc> people get excited because there is lots of marketing around the name, not because the name is different
18:11:14 <inode0> and there are some suggestions where I think that would be the case
18:11:20 <Sparks> gholms: So we can just make the default to the middle now.  Wouldn't you still change your votes for everything?
18:11:30 * jreznik thinks /dev/random is the best solution now
18:11:30 <mizmo> inode0, +1
18:11:36 <mizmo> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
18:11:42 <mizmo> jreznik -999999999999
18:11:46 <EvilBob> misc: and the marketing of BM started a year and a half before the release with that name went to market.
18:11:52 <jreznik> mizmo: it's not random!
18:12:01 <gholms> Sparks: I would, but I can't speak for everyone.  ;-)
18:12:05 <mizmo> effectively our current process is /dev/random
18:12:22 <MarkDude> EvilBob, the push for BBQ as a theme started a while ago also ;)
18:12:23 <rdieter> "Hat Styles/headgear" rocks to me.  that's my suggestion to follow.. who's with me?
18:12:31 <sekhmet> Sparks: Rating something with a negative number is psychologically different than rating something down to zero on an all-positive scale
18:12:35 * rdieter gives a barbaric yawp, charges blindly across a field
18:12:42 <mizmo> rdieter, legal won't go for that at all
18:12:45 <rbergeron> rdieter: is that braveheart style?
18:12:52 <gholms> Heh
18:12:53 <mizmo> rdieter, there's already a trademark restriction there
18:13:00 <jreznik> looks like we are really in circle? let's think about possibilities? do we want another poll? do we want Board to decide based on proc/cons? etc?
18:13:01 <EvilBob> rdieter: You get "hats" the concept past legal
18:13:03 <MarkDude> rdieterif we can get resrictions on what Fedorans can wear on their head changed- maybe
18:13:03 <rdieter> mizmo: rats, move it down into the "bad" list on the wiki then
18:13:07 <rdieter> tease me like that
18:13:11 <mizmo> rdieter, sorry :(
18:13:16 <rdieter> :)
18:13:30 <mizmo> another poll with three options, not two, would be a hell of a lot more informative
18:13:31 <rdieter> rbergeron: you caught me
18:13:40 <rbergeron> rdieter: i see your blue facepaint
18:13:41 <jreznik> mizmo: now only two
18:13:44 <EvilBob> Sparks: There is your chance
18:13:53 <thm> mizmo: you might want to add a column explaining why the problematic are bad.
18:13:56 <Sparks> jreznik: I think the Board should review the suggestions that mizmo pointed to and come up with a plan.
18:13:57 <MarkDude> ppsychologically scale? How about an emotive wieghting also
18:13:59 <bcotton> thm: +1
18:14:06 <EvilBob> jreznik: no, still needs the "drop it" competition against them
18:14:18 <jreznik> EvilBob: why?
18:14:25 <mizmo> thm, i can't, im not a lawyer, and i dont know if the lawyers want to explain why they are bad
18:14:27 <Sparks> EvilBob: My chance to do what?
18:14:30 <MarkDude> drop the naming thing has lost out
18:14:33 <bcotton> EvilBob: the community voted to keep the names
18:14:34 <mizmo> thm, there is a column to explain concerns
18:14:35 <pjones> jreznik: because otherwise people are only expressing their second choice
18:14:43 <rdieter> ok, "things that are blue" or the more geeky "scientific discovery/innovation" then are the ones that jump out to me
18:14:47 <thm> mizmo: but someone moved them down, no?
18:14:55 <EvilBob> Sparks: attack mizmo about the re-run the poll with 3 opinion
18:15:20 <Sparks> EvilBob: I'm fine with running a new poll but you'll have to ask a different question.
18:15:33 <Sparks> The last poll answered the question.
18:15:45 * inode0 agrees with rdieter there, those are open enough to be fun to the community
18:15:51 <pjones> bcotton: beside the point; there's utility in getting fully ranked data with all options
18:15:54 * MarkDude thinks some may need to be attaqcked here (including myself) not mizmo tho- she is reasonable
18:15:54 <jreznik> ok, let Board work on the proposed pros/cons, possibility of another poll and we will see
18:16:11 <MarkDude> No more polls PLEASE
18:16:13 <jreznik> does it work for you?
18:16:16 <misc> then "keep the current release naming process" vs "change the release naming process"
18:16:22 <jreznik> MarkDude: and it does not mean it will end with a poll
18:16:30 <MarkDude> Keep voting til we get the results desired?
18:16:41 <MarkDude> bad mojo
18:16:42 <misc> or "keeo the current one" "use theme" "use another scheme"
18:16:56 <pjones> MarkDude: the poll would be asking the community for data; it isn't making the decision.
18:17:02 <MarkDude> at what point may I answer the open question to me?
18:17:10 <MarkDude> the community SPOKE
18:17:12 * jreznik is going to end meeting in three minutes - just a WARNING :)
18:17:15 <mizmo> im not sure there are viable options beyond current process and theme
18:17:25 * MarkDude will answer question now then
18:17:26 <rdieter> mizmo: true
18:17:34 <mizmo> there are enough people who want to drop entirely that 3 options would be needed to be fair
18:17:46 <mizmo> rbergeron and others pointed out some pros to drop entirely
18:17:48 <inode0> actually we could use one of the proposed new processes without theming having anything to do with it :)
18:17:48 <MarkDude> Tatica uses the term *professional * to market Fedora in LATAM
18:17:53 <gholms> #idea Ask the board to ponder this list of pros and cons
18:17:57 <EvilBob> take the "winning" number, divide it in half, compare the halves against the :loser: of the poll and suddenly the :loser: WINS!
18:17:59 * Sparks would personally like to see names paired with marketing and art so it's one big package and it's fun.
18:18:15 <mizmo> Sparks +1
18:18:22 <MarkDude> That is not the way to market it- it needs another adjective-
18:18:24 <bcotton> Sparks +1
18:18:31 <mizmo> having things consistent in one package makes it seem much more integrated / together
18:18:35 <jreznik> marketing is important - the think is if we really want release name for marketing purposes?
18:18:49 <MarkDude> Pros may not like 13 month cycles
18:19:24 <mizmo> jreznik, we dont even need to make the name public, but if the name is the driver for very nice ,consistent artwork and marketing messages it's worth it
18:19:33 <mizmo> jreznik, especially if the theme is closely tied with fedora's values
18:19:37 <mizmo> jreznik, it's a catalyst
18:19:38 <MarkDude> If she were to use Pro-developers- it would be more appropriate- the assumption being that pros DONT have humor
18:19:56 <Sparks> mizmo: Maybe the name should have some relation to one or more of the values?
18:20:18 <mizmo> a big problem we have on fedora is we are often not on the same page and it leads to misdirection and confusion. having a theme to follow can help get everyone on the same page
18:20:18 <MarkDude> The Foundations would be a good qualifier IMO
18:20:20 <brunowolff> Maybe we should limit the groups proposing names to marketing and design teams?
18:20:25 <Sparks> Make that the, or one of the, rules for naming
18:20:25 <gholms> #idea Names with more relation to Fedora's foundations
18:20:36 <MarkDude> brunowolff, _1
18:20:36 <mizmo> Sparks, a lot of the suggestions on the wiki have been tied to one if not more of fedora's four f's
18:20:39 <MarkDude> -1
18:20:52 * jreznik likes the idea of relation to fedora foundations but it can be even harder to find such
18:20:53 <mizmo> Sparks, we could make an explicit 'tie in to fedora's foundations' column
18:20:56 <MarkDude> gholms, +1
18:21:05 <jreznik> mizmo: +1
18:21:17 <Sparks> mizmo: I'm sure that can still get creative around that.
18:21:19 * inode0 suggests limiting the theme to marketing and design - and leave the release name as fun for the rest of us
18:21:24 <mizmo> jreznik, well the person with the smile nick (he/she seems to have left now) said things like the birds and oceans theme suggestions made her think of freedom
18:21:28 <inode0> theme name
18:21:28 * jsmith plays devil's advocate by throwing out the fact that "beefy miracles is freedom from boring food"
18:21:32 <MarkDude> inode0, +1
18:21:41 <mizmo> jsmith, not constructive
18:21:44 <MarkDude> jsmith, +infinty
18:21:50 <Sparks> jsmith: See, creativity!
18:21:57 <jsmith> mizmo: I'm just saying -- almost anything can somehow be linked together
18:22:00 <mizmo> inode0, having two names i dont think helps get people on the same page
18:22:00 <MarkDude> HUmor- jsmith has it :D
18:22:07 <EvilBob> Get a list of words from a thesaurus tied to the foundations, sounds like a great idea to me.
18:22:19 <inode0> I also suggest seeing how this actually works out - so far it is not the gloom and doom I'm hearing here
18:22:22 <mizmo> jsmith, that doesnt mean they are all valid or sensible
18:22:24 <Sparks> inode0: Well, if the community selects a name it should be something that design and marketing can work with
18:22:37 <inode0> why?
18:22:40 <mizmo> inode0, unless the release name is really - and i mean really - buried
18:22:56 <Sparks> inode0: Part of the package.
18:22:58 <jreznik> EvilBob: can be difficult for non-native speakers... to understand thesaurus connection
18:23:00 <inode0> it doesn't need to be any more buried than santiago
18:23:09 <inode0> does Red Hat market and theme sanitago?
18:23:10 <mizmo> inode0, because if we have an article about Fedora 19 codename 'durpdurp' in the headlines, and we picked beautiful birds as the theme... we send the message that fedora is a very confused and odd set of crazy people
18:23:25 <Sparks> inode0: People install F, the default artwork makes you think $releasename, etc
18:23:29 <bcotton> don't forget about docs. we work with marketing to write the release announcment and the theme is important to our work
18:23:51 <inode0> the artwork often bears no resemblance to the release name to me
18:24:03 <MarkDude> Again- Im sorry if some dont have humor- you can stick to numbers- my liking a cartoon hotdog should not make you feel less than
18:24:06 <Sparks> inode0: Exactly and I haven't been a fan of that
18:24:21 <Sparks> bcotton: I'm going to suggest release names just to give Docs a run for their money
18:24:30 <mizmo> MarkDude, its like making a sweet pink teddy bear a mascot for a box of cigarettes
18:24:36 <sekhmet> MarkDude: And again, please stop it with the ad hominem attacks.  I already get that you think I don't have a sense of humor because I don't like the name.
18:24:48 <mizmo> MarkDude, or making a satantic goat with a beer gut the mascot for baby powder
18:24:57 <EvilBob> mizmo: is there enough people involved in the design group that can support a long term theaming vision over a more random theme?
18:25:15 <MarkDude> mizmo, how about Godwins law drops for full derailemnt?
18:25:17 <jreznik> well, thanks for coming - we can now move the discussion to back to mailing list, I'll take it to the Board on Wednesday and we will see if want to continue with IRC meetings or not and what's going to be a next step
18:25:25 <jreznik> last 30 seconds :)
18:25:27 <mizmo> EvilBob, yes, i believe strongly that anything that brings consistency to the cyclical tasks we do like release theming will only make our jobs easier
18:25:36 <gholms> Thanks for the discussion, everyone!
18:25:40 <brunowolff> For the next meeting, we really need an agenda.
18:25:41 <Sparks> mizmo: Don't you have a radioactive panda bear?
18:25:44 <mizmo> MarkDude, im making a valid point
18:25:46 <EvilBob> mizmo: That is great information IMO
18:25:54 <Sparks> brunowolff: +1
18:25:55 <mizmo> Sparks, he's hidden! only on 500 errors
18:25:57 * inode0 is afraid any consistent multi-release theme will spoil release name fun
18:25:58 <N3LRX> +1 on the agenda
18:26:00 <MarkDude> slippery slops- I get it
18:26:01 <jreznik> brunowolff: it's hard to have agenda on something such generic...
18:26:06 <Sparks> mizmo: Just saying... :D
18:26:24 <mizmo> if the theme is birds you can pick bizarre birds to have 'fun'
18:26:28 <mizmo> you just have less of a shot of them winning
18:26:29 <EvilBob> mizmo: rather than some of the other statements of "theme does not tie to the name well" that I have seen.
18:26:34 <brunowolff> Than maybe devote a meeting to a more narrow aspect of the issue.
18:26:45 <inode0> people will get bored with birds after one release
18:26:47 <jreznik> #info prepare aganda for next meeting based on Board and ml discussion
18:26:54 <mizmo> yo dawg! i heard you like meetings. so lets have a meeting to discsus having meetings!
18:27:08 <jreznik> mizmo: that's something I tried to avoid :)))
18:27:10 <mizmo> inode0, you'd think people would get bored of portraits of people after some hundred years but :)
18:27:12 <brunowolff> This meeting was OK to get a feel of where we might want to go in future meetings, but didn't really seem to accomplish much other than that.
18:27:16 * MarkDude can admit he is hyper- knows his shortcomings- why cant those with humor look in mirrors
18:27:28 <jreznik> brunowolff: indeed and for me it was the reason why to have it
18:27:33 <jreznik> thanks all
18:27:36 <jreznik> #endmeeting