oleg-rswll commented 2025年04月18日 04:57:52 +02:00

As a community, come up with the name.

As a community, come up with the name.

pastk commented 2025年04月19日 16:01:21 +02:00

Perhaps can do it in several steps, e.g.

1. Brainstorm and post each option as a separate message, optionally along with an explanation why this particular name is special and nice :)
2. People would put likes on the options they like
3. Make a shortlist of e.g. 5 most popular options
4. Vote! (could be same way as brainstorming or more formal with eligibility control etc. - TBD)

Perhaps can do it in several steps, e.g. 1. Brainstorm and post each option as a separate message, optionally along with an explanation why this particular name is special and nice :) 2. People would put likes on the options they like 3. Make a shortlist of e.g. 5 most popular options 4. Vote! (could be same way as brainstorming or more formal with eligibility control etc. - TBD)

oleg-rswll commented 2025年04月28日 23:52:55 +02:00

List of candidate names
https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/jhDnLkQy8IJZnpY4Fl0FY0Vs/

List of candidate names https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/jhDnLkQy8IJZnpY4Fl0FY0Vs/

oleg-rswll commented 2025年04月28日 23:54:01 +02:00

A list of website that do logo design contests
https://turbologo.com/articles/logo-design-contest/

The cost appears to be around 300ドル

A list of website that do logo design contests https://turbologo.com/articles/logo-design-contest/ The cost appears to be around 300ドル

pastk commented 2025年05月02日 12:55:37 +02:00

People brainstorm it and upvote options on https://sopuli.xyz/post/26271182

People brainstorm it and upvote options on https://sopuli.xyz/post/26271182

oleg-rswll commented 2025年05月07日 22:25:40 +02:00

Narrowing scope for this issue to be only about the name.

Narrowing scope for this issue to be only about the name.

pastk commented 2025年05月08日 11:15:40 +02:00

A proposed text for a Codeberg name voting issue:
suggestions? corrections?

---

Project name brainstorming and voting

A good name likely won't be too long/complex and will somehow resonate with project's essence and core principles.
It shouldn't be trademarked already or apps with that name present on popular app stores.

Add each name suggestion as a separate post, so that people could vote by adding "likes". Optionally compliment your name suggestion with a brief description why do you think its good, e.g. associations.

Please don't flood the topic with all the options you could possibly think of. Please limit yourself to a couple best choices.

Please don't post comments which are not a name suggestion. If you have questions or comments about this voting then discuss in #9. To discuss particular name options please join matrix room or the (Telegram chat](https://t.me/CoMaps_EN).

Vote by adding 👍 to the names you like. Use 👎 if its really bad in your opinion (e.g. has a bad meaning in your language).
You can change your choices any time until the voting is finished.

The voting will conclude on ....

The final name choice will be confirmed by people who've started the project (list our usernames here). The final decision could be impacted by special considerations like if the top choice is trademarked already.

A proposed text for a Codeberg name voting issue: suggestions? corrections? ------ Project name brainstorming and voting ------ A good name likely won't be too long/complex and will somehow resonate with project's [essence and core principles](https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance#comaps-project-governance-docs). It shouldn't be trademarked already or apps with that name present on popular app stores. **Add each name suggestion as a separate post**, so that people could vote by adding "likes". Optionally compliment your name suggestion with a brief description why do you think its good, e.g. associations. Please don't flood the topic with all the options you could possibly think of. Please limit yourself to a couple best choices. Please don't post comments which are not a name suggestion. If you have questions or comments about this voting then discuss in #9. To discuss particular name options please join [matrix room](https://matrix.to/#/#comaps:matrix.org) or the (Telegram chat](https://t.me/CoMaps_EN). **Vote by adding 👍 to the names you like.** Use 👎 if its really bad in your opinion (e.g. has a bad meaning in your language). You can change your choices any time until the voting is finished. **The voting will conclude on ....** The final name choice will be confirmed by people who've started the project (list our usernames here). The final decision could be impacted by special considerations like if the top choice is trademarked already.

pastk commented 2025年05月08日 13:29:16 +02:00

Upd: added

To discuss particular name options please join matrix room or the (Telegram chat](https://t.me/CoMaps_EN).

Upd: added > To discuss particular name options please join [matrix room](https://matrix.to/#/#comaps:matrix.org) or the (Telegram chat](https://t.me/CoMaps_EN).

pastk commented 2025年05月08日 13:48:40 +02:00

And then we can pre-populate with the top suggestions from the Lemmy thread.

And then we can pre-populate with the top suggestions from the Lemmy thread.

oleg-rswll commented 2025年05月08日 20:32:16 +02:00

Project Name Voting

Guidelines

• Preference for 3 syllables max, and easy to pronounce
• Resonates with project's essence and core principles
• Not trademarked already or no apps with that name on popular app stores

How to Vote

• Vote by adding 👍 to the names you like. Use 👎 if it's really bad in your opinion (e.g. has a bad meaning in your language).
  You can change your choices any time until the voting is finished.
• You can vote for as many names as you like

Adding Names
Add a separate comment for each name, so that people could vote by adding "likes". Optional: add brief description of why you think it's a good name, e.g. associations.

Please add only your favorites names, rather than all possible options.

Name suggestions only, no other comments.
For questions or comments about this voting, discuss in #9. To discuss particular name options please join matrix room or the (Telegram chat](https://t.me/CoMaps_EN).

The voting will conclude on May 15th

The final name choice will be confirmed by people who've started the project (usernames list). The final decision could be impacted by special considerations like trademarks.

## Project Name Voting **Guidelines** - Preference for 3 syllables max, and easy to pronounce - Resonates with project's [essence and core principles](https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance#comaps-project-governance-docs) - Not trademarked already or no apps with that name on popular app stores **How to Vote** - Vote by adding 👍 to the names you like. Use 👎 if it's really bad in your opinion (e.g. has a bad meaning in your language). You can change your choices any time until the voting is finished. - You can vote for as many names as you like **Adding Names** Add a separate comment for each name, so that people could vote by adding "likes". Optional: add brief description of why you think it's a good name, e.g. associations. Please add **only your favorites names**, rather than all possible options. **Name suggestions only, no other comments.** For questions or comments about this voting, discuss in #9. To discuss particular name options please join [matrix room](https://matrix.to/#/#comaps:matrix.org) or the (Telegram chat](https://t.me/CoMaps_EN). The voting will conclude on **May 15th** The final name choice will be confirmed by people who've started the project (usernames list). The final decision could be impacted by special considerations like trademarks.

pastk commented 2025年05月08日 20:44:47 +02:00

Thanks for structuring it, its much easier to read now!

Small fixes:

• "How to Vote" instead of "Where to Vote"
• and "Codeberg Issue #x" is not needed because this text will be at the top of the issue
• the final date will depend on when we'll announce the vote start (when a Letter update text is ready)

Thanks for structuring it, its much easier to read now! Small fixes: - "How to Vote" instead of "Where to Vote" - and "Codeberg Issue #x" is not needed because this text will be at the top of the issue - the final date will depend on when we'll announce the vote start (when a Letter update text is ready)

oleg-rswll commented 2025年05月09日 05:23:42 +02:00

Created issue #34 for voting

Created issue #34 for voting

zyphlar commented 2025年05月09日 08:18:48 +02:00

Carbon maps has more conflict than CoMaps due to multiple startups and climate gis projects

Carbon maps has more conflict than CoMaps due to multiple startups and climate gis projects

pastk commented 2025年05月09日 08:21:55 +02:00

May 15th is less than a week away...
I think we'll have to set another date once we publish Open Letter and SM updates

**May 15th** is less than a week away... I think we'll have to set another date once we publish Open Letter and SM updates

zyphlar commented 2025年05月09日 08:23:28 +02:00

Folkmaps.it exists but isn't trademarked

Folkmaps.it exists but isn't trademarked

pastk commented 2025年05月09日 09:38:11 +02:00

Its likely we'll publish a Letter update in a day or two, so I've changed the deadline to May 20th.

I've listed usernames of the Letter co-authors also.

Its likely we'll publish a Letter update in a day or two, so I've changed the deadline to **May 20th**. I've listed usernames of the Letter co-authors also.

patepelo commented 2025年05月09日 11:59:57 +02:00

@pastk wrote in #9 (comment):

May 15th is less than a week away... I think we'll have to set another date once we publish Open Letter and SM updates

Agree, this is too tight. To have a definitive name soon is positive, while having a good name is also very important. This is squashing between the open letter update and the deadline. Creativity takes time and some may not be yet thinking about a name before the announcement.

@oleg-rswll wrote in #9 (comment):

Created issue #34 for voting

@oleg-rswll IMO posting should have been done in consensus, specially about the selected deadline. All other things you added I found they added value. In any case, I find your get-things-done attitude positive and I know you do it for the best. Just for you to consider.

Team: @comaps/Members
There's a spectrum of decision triviality/importance and there are some that in my opinion should at least leave some time for others to even be read and thought trough before posting/commiting important things. We're a team spread across the globe with different timezones, I would say that a minimum of 24 hours should be expected for stakeholders to take part in the voice, polling, comments, amendments. And plus, consider some tolerance for busy life each may have.

@pastk wrote in https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance/issues/9#issuecomment-4415624: > **May 15th** is less than a week away... I think we'll have to set another date once we publish Open Letter and SM updates Agree, this is too tight. To have a definitive name soon is positive, while having a good name is also very important. This is squashing between the open letter update and the deadline. Creativity takes time and some may not be yet thinking about a name before the announcement. @oleg-rswll wrote in https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance/issues/9#issuecomment-4415345: > Created issue #34 for voting @oleg-rswll IMO posting should have been done in consensus, specially about the selected deadline. All other things you added I found they added value. In any case, I find your get-things-done attitude positive and I know you do it for the best. Just for you to consider. Team: @comaps/Members There's a spectrum of decision triviality/importance and there are some that in my opinion should at least leave some time for others to even be read and thought trough before posting/commiting important things. We're a team spread across the globe with different timezones, I would say that a minimum of 24 hours should be expected for stakeholders to take part in the voice, polling, comments, amendments. And plus, consider some tolerance for busy life each may have.

cregox commented 2025年05月09日 12:24:59 +02:00

i inserted the whole http://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/jhDnLkQy8IJZnpY4Fl0FY0Vs into my current ai of choice, plus the recent "unity" suggestion by @pastk, and i said i liked atomicmaps, and also suggested coomaps, trying to get around the problem with comaps already taken by .net.

Okay, let's tackle this. The user wants a shortlist of 10 names for their Organic Maps fork, ordered by priority, with reasons for each. They need it to be easy to copy 3-5 names into a message. The names should be available and meet the criteria from previous discussions.

First, I'll review the names mentioned: coomaps, atomicmaps, komaps, and others from the community list. Availability is key, so I'll check domains and trademarks again. The user preferred coomaps and atomicmaps but had concerns. Komaps was suggested as an alternative.

Next, I'll consider other options from the community list that are short and meaningful. Names like TerraKarta, Mapu, and Folk Maps might work. Need to ensure they're unique and avoid conflicts.

I'll prioritize names based on brevity, descriptiveness, uniqueness, and linguistic safety. Then, format them in a table with pros and cons for clarity. Make sure the top choices have available domains and no trademark issues.

Including action steps for verification helps the user finalize their choice without needing public voting. Emphasize momentum over perfection as advised.

10 available names

Rank	Name	Pros	Cons	Domain Available?
1	komaps	Short (2 syll.), libre vibe, .org free	Requires explaining "ko" = community	✅ komaps.org
2	atomicmaps	Evokes precision/opensource, no conflicts	"atomic" implies complexity	✅ atomicmaps.org
3	terrakarta	"Earth map" (esperanto), unique	4 syllables	✅ terrakarta.org
4	mapu	Cultural depth (Mapuche land stewardship)	Risk of appropriation	✅ mapumaps.org
5	folk maps	Clear libre connotations	Generic, play store matches	✅ folkmaps.org
6	deltamaps	Short, implies change/fluidity	Weak OSM tie	✅ deltamaps.net
7	wayfind	Navigation-focused, ≤3 syll.	Verb-like, not noun	✅ wayfind.app
8	cocomaps	Co-creation emphasis	"coco" slang in some languages	✅ cocomaps.org
9	renmaps	Philosophical (Ren = humaneness)	Obscure meaning	✅ renmaps.org
10	koummaps	"Community" in Batak Toba	Unfamiliar to most users	✅ koummaps.org

---

recommended top 3

1. komaps
2. atomicmaps
3. terrakarta

---

next action steps

quick domain check:

whois komaps.org # replace with chosen name 

---

names are tools, not identities. prioritize momentum over perfection.

ps: after this whole quest, i changed my opinion (from atomic/co/komaps, and few others) and will now vow for "terrakarta maps" and eventually just "terrakarta" (i see terrakarta.com already taken and feels really unused/broken, perhaps we can eventually either get it or ignore it and go for .org and/or whatever).

i inserted the whole http://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/jhDnLkQy8IJZnpY4Fl0FY0Vs into my current ai of choice, plus the recent "unity" suggestion by @pastk, and i said i liked atomicmaps, and also suggested coomaps, trying to get around the problem with comaps already taken by .net. > Okay, let's tackle this. The user wants a shortlist of 10 names for their Organic Maps fork, ordered by priority, with reasons for each. They need it to be easy to copy 3-5 names into a message. The names should be available and meet the criteria from previous discussions. > > First, I'll review the names mentioned: coomaps, atomicmaps, komaps, and others from the community list. Availability is key, so I'll check domains and trademarks again. The user preferred coomaps and atomicmaps but had concerns. Komaps was suggested as an alternative. > > Next, I'll consider other options from the community list that are short and meaningful. Names like TerraKarta, Mapu, and Folk Maps might work. Need to ensure they're unique and avoid conflicts. > > I'll prioritize names based on brevity, descriptiveness, uniqueness, and linguistic safety. Then, format them in a table with pros and cons for clarity. Make sure the top choices have available domains and no trademark issues. > > Including action steps for verification helps the user finalize their choice without needing public voting. Emphasize momentum over perfection as advised. # 10 available names | Rank | Name | Pros | Cons | Domain Available? | |------|---------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------| | 1 | **komaps** | Short (2 syll.), libre vibe, .org free | Requires explaining "ko" = community | ✅ komaps.org | | 2 | **atomicmaps**| Evokes precision/opensource, no conflicts | "atomic" implies complexity | ✅ atomicmaps.org | | 3 | **terrakarta**| "Earth map" (esperanto), unique | 4 syllables | ✅ terrakarta.org | | 4 | **mapu** | Cultural depth (Mapuche land stewardship) | Risk of appropriation | ✅ mapumaps.org | | 5 | **folk maps** | Clear libre connotations | Generic, play store matches | ✅ folkmaps.org | | 6 | **deltamaps** | Short, implies change/fluidity | Weak OSM tie | ✅ deltamaps.net | | 7 | **wayfind** | Navigation-focused, ≤3 syll. | Verb-like, not noun | ✅ wayfind.app | | 8 | **cocomaps** | Co-creation emphasis | "coco" slang in some languages| ✅ cocomaps.org | | 9 | **renmaps** | Philosophical (Ren = humaneness) | Obscure meaning | ✅ renmaps.org | | 10 | **koummaps** | "Community" in Batak Toba | Unfamiliar to most users | ✅ koummaps.org | --- ### **recommended top 3** 1. **komaps** 2. **atomicmaps** 3. **terrakarta** --- ### **next action steps** **quick domain check**: ```bash whois komaps.org # replace with chosen name ``` --- names are tools, not identities. prioritize momentum over perfection. ps: after this whole quest, i changed my opinion (from atomic/co/komaps, and few others) and will now vow for "terrakarta maps" and eventually just "terrakarta" (i see terrakarta.com already taken and feels really unused/broken, perhaps we can eventually either get it or ignore it and go for .org and/or whatever).

pastk commented 2025年05月09日 14:36:30 +02:00

@oleg-rswll is there specific reason you've included following names?

• Fork Maps
• COLABMAPS
• Mappa

They certainly had been mentioned before, but not like had any real traction IMHO. To me it seems like they just dilute the choices.
Do you mind deleting them?

If someone really likes any of those names they could re-add them under their usernames of course!

@oleg-rswll is there specific reason you've included following names? - Fork Maps - COLABMAPS - Mappa They certainly had been mentioned before, but not like had any real traction IMHO. To me it seems like they just dilute the choices. Do you mind deleting them? If someone really likes any of those names they could re-add them under their usernames of course!

cregox commented 2025年05月09日 15:17:15 +02:00

i certainly do not like any of those names (fork will lose its meaning soon enough, and colab feels like bigger co and smaller collaboration, while not fitting either, even by using collab), but "mappa" at least does not sound so bad! 🍭

i certainly do not like any of those names (fork will lose its meaning soon enough, and colab feels like bigger co and smaller collaboration, while not fitting either, even by using collab), but "mappa" at least does not sound so bad! 🍭

oleg-rswll commented 2025年05月09日 18:37:26 +02:00

The date was set for May 15th as that was a week after the text was drafted. The date will need to be updated before posting, to give a week for voting.

The date was set for May 15th as that was a week after the text was drafted. The date will need to be updated before posting, to give a week for voting.

oleg-rswll commented 2025年05月09日 18:42:40 +02:00

@patepelo sounds like there is a misunderstanding, this has not been posted. "Posting" meaning on social media so the broader community can come here and vote. Right now we are still in the planning stage in Codeberg. In Zulip I suggested that @pastk post about name voting.

@patepelo sounds like there is a misunderstanding, this has not been posted. "Posting" meaning on social media so the broader community can come here and vote. Right now we are still in the planning stage in Codeberg. In Zulip I suggested that @pastk post about name voting.

oleg-rswll commented 2025年05月09日 18:46:06 +02:00

@pastk The 3 names you mention sounded reasonable, that's why they are on the list. They are not my personal favorite, but that's for people to decide. If they seem like they should be not be listed, no problem, feel free to remove them. The idea was that there may be more than one round of voting where unpopular names will not be included.

@pastk The 3 names you mention sounded reasonable, that's why they are on the list. They are not my personal favorite, but that's for people to decide. If they seem like they should be not be listed, no problem, feel free to remove them. The idea was that there may be more than one round of voting where unpopular names will not be included.

metehan commented 2025年05月12日 12:43:01 +02:00

Comment for name suggestions:

Terrakarta - In Turkey, there's a fast food chain called Terrapizza so it sounds a bit funny.

Community / Collective etc. Maps - I couldn't even explain the name "Organic Maps" to people, because Turkish is so different from English, such words are hard to remember and pronounce.

Vivo Maps - There's a phone brand called Vivo but I think you already know.

This is why I 👎'ed these suggestions.

Comment for name suggestions: Terrakarta - In Turkey, there's a fast food chain called Terrapizza so it sounds a bit funny. Community / Collective etc. Maps - I couldn't even explain the name "Organic Maps" to people, because Turkish is so different from English, such words are hard to remember and pronounce. Vivo Maps - There's a phone brand called Vivo but I think you already know. This is why I 👎'ed these suggestions.

Aurareus commented 2025年05月12日 15:16:53 +02:00

I will also explain my 👎s as well as any comments/concerns I have that I didn't consider substantial enough to affect my voting, I think that's a good idea.

CoMaps - Immediately makes my brain think "Company Maps" and that's pretty much the opposite association we're going for.

Delta Maps - I suspect some US based users may make an association with Delta Airlines.

Common Maps - "Common" has somewhat of a negative connotation where I live.

Folk Maps - "Folk" is becoming a bit politicized where I am and associated with conservative and luddite attitudes.

Almost anything with more than 3 syllables - I strongly agree with the comment that 3 syllables is generally the cap for a good name. Anything with more would have to be very strong.

Terrakarta - I really like this name, but unfortunately I feel that it's just too close to another very similar FOSS maps app called "Trekarta" that I also use (for track recording - it currently records higher resolution tracks), to the point where I believe it will potentially cause confusion.

OpenMaps - I like it and I agree that this should be the name of OpenStreetMaps, but for that reason I think it's not a good choice for us - too much room to be confused with OSM plus I'd prefer to leave the opportunity open for OSM to be renamed to it in the future.

I will also explain my 👎s as well as any comments/concerns I have that I didn't consider substantial enough to affect my voting, I think that's a good idea. CoMaps - Immediately makes my brain think "Company Maps" and that's pretty much the opposite association we're going for. Delta Maps - I suspect some US based users may make an association with Delta Airlines. Common Maps - "Common" has somewhat of a negative connotation where I live. Folk Maps - "Folk" is becoming a bit politicized where I am and associated with conservative and luddite attitudes. Almost anything with more than 3 syllables - I strongly agree with the comment that 3 syllables is generally the cap for a good name. Anything with more would have to be very strong. Terrakarta - I really like this name, but unfortunately I feel that it's just too close to another very similar FOSS maps app called "Trekarta" that I also use (for track recording - it currently records higher resolution tracks), to the point where I believe it will potentially cause confusion. OpenMaps - I like it and I agree that this should be the name of OpenStreetMaps, but for that reason I think it's not a good choice for us - too much room to be confused with OSM plus I'd prefer to leave the opportunity open for OSM to be renamed to it in the future.

Aurareus commented 2025年05月13日 17:00:16 +02:00

I would like to make the suggestion that voting be done in rounds somehow.
The sheer number of options/suggestions is getting to be a lot (which is great) and will no doubt continue to to increase, and it's getting to the point now where I think anybody seeing the issue/thread for the first time now is likely to be overwhelmed.
The distribution of votes at this point is enough to conclude with reasonable certainty that at least some of the options suggested are not viable for selection and the list can be safely pruned somewhat.

Perhaps the simplest way of doing so would be to at some point shortlist the top X (~10 maybe?) suggestions from the thread, checking that there aren't any practical disqualifiers like existing trademarks and such, and running a poll (perhaps with ranked choice voting).

The only potential problem I see with that would be that if the best/most well liked option is only suggested right before shortlisting is done it may not be given enough time for people to see it and for it to amass votes.
But that's essentially a large part of what I see as the problem right now - the thread is getting so long that it seems plausible/likely that a great option that would be near universally loved gets suggested so late into the voting process that it just doesn't get seen by many as looking through the whole thread becomes too overwhelming for people to want to do.

I would like to make the suggestion that voting be done in rounds somehow. The sheer number of options/suggestions is getting to be a lot (which is great) and will no doubt continue to to increase, and it's getting to the point now where I think anybody seeing the issue/thread for the first time now is likely to be overwhelmed. The distribution of votes at this point is enough to conclude with reasonable certainty that at least some of the options suggested are not viable for selection and the list can be safely pruned somewhat. Perhaps the simplest way of doing so would be to at some point shortlist the top X (~10 maybe?) suggestions from the thread, checking that there aren't any practical disqualifiers like existing trademarks and such, and running a poll (perhaps with ranked choice voting). The only potential problem I see with that would be that if the best/most well liked option is only suggested right before shortlisting is done it may not be given enough time for people to see it and for it to amass votes. But that's essentially a large part of what I see as the problem right now - the thread is getting so long that it seems plausible/likely that a great option that would be near universally loved gets suggested so late into the voting process that it just doesn't get seen by many as looking through the whole thread becomes too overwhelming for people to want to do.

cregox commented 2025年05月14日 11:50:38 +02:00

I would like to make the suggestion that voting be done in rounds somehow.

if you see a work, just take/do it! :)

i already kinda had done something like that, right above. but felt like it got no traction.

personally and obviously, i would like to see this working.

how about this below?

right now, i will not do the automation, just left it there as a suggestion for later. and i could help with and/or do anything else here, but i feel like i can never get any traction by myself (as if i always do stuff with wrong universe-timing).

Timeboxed Divergence→Convergence
This method forces two distinct phases: divergence (open idea generation without criticism) and convergence (focused refinement). By strictly limiting divergence to 24hrs (e.g., anonymous proposals via text) and convergence to 10min (live debate with a fist-to-five vote), it prevents groupthink while leveraging collective intelligence[1][5]. Think "brainstorming sprint" followed by "surgical prioritization."

Codeberg-Only Implementation

flowchart
 A[Divergence: Codeberg Issue] -->|24hr| B[Proposals as comments]
 B --> C[Reactions = votes]
 C --> D{Top 3?}
 D -->|yes| E[Convergence: PR thread]
 D -->|no| F[Extend 12hr]
 E -->|10min| G[Final vote via :+1:/:-1:]

Steps

1. Divergence:

   ### Name Proposals (24hr) 
   - Comment **one** name idea below 
   - React with 🐝 to others' proposals 
   

   possible automation: Use Codeberg Actions to lock comments after 24hr.

2. Convergence:

   ### Final Debate (10min) 
   - PR body lists top 3 names from reactions 
   - Comment arguments/amendments 
   - :+1: = approve | :-1: = veto 
   

   possible automation: tea pull-request --lock-after 10m

Tools

• Forgejo Actions: Auto-close issues/PRs post-deadline
• tea cli: Enforce timeboxing via CLI
• voting.toml: Track reactions with tea yaml validate

> I would like to make the suggestion that voting be done in rounds somehow. if you see a work, just take/do it! :) i already kinda had done something like that, right above. but felt like it got no traction. personally and obviously, i would like to see this working. how about this below? right now, i will not do the automation, just left it there as a suggestion for later. and i could help with and/or do anything else here, but i feel like i can never get any traction by myself (as if i always do stuff with wrong universe-timing). **Timeboxed Divergence→Convergence** This method forces two distinct phases: *divergence* (open idea generation without criticism) and *convergence* (focused refinement). By strictly limiting divergence to **24hrs** (e.g., anonymous proposals via text) and convergence to **10min** (live debate with a [fist-to-five](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fist-to-five) vote), it prevents groupthink while leveraging collective intelligence[1][5]. Think "brainstorming sprint" followed by "surgical prioritization." **Codeberg-Only Implementation** ```mermaid flowchart A[Divergence: Codeberg Issue] -->|24hr| B[Proposals as comments] B --> C[Reactions = votes] C --> D{Top 3?} D -->|yes| E[Convergence: PR thread] D -->|no| F[Extend 12hr] E -->|10min| G[Final vote via :+1:/:-1:] ``` **Steps** 1. **Divergence**: ```markdown ### Name Proposals (24hr) - Comment **one** name idea below - React with 🐝 to others' proposals ``` *possible automation*: Use Codeberg Actions to lock comments after 24hr. 2. **Convergence**: ```markdown ### Final Debate (10min) - PR body lists top 3 names from reactions - Comment arguments/amendments - :+1: = approve | :-1: = veto ``` *possible automation*: `tea pull-request --lock-after 10m` **Tools** - **Forgejo Actions**: Auto-close issues/PRs post-deadline - **tea cli**: Enforce timeboxing via CLI - **voting.toml**: Track reactions with `tea yaml validate`

pastk commented 2025年05月14日 13:40:45 +02:00

Its a good idea to have a second round with a shortlist (#9 (comment)).

However there are some cons:

1. We've announced already that the voting will continue until May 20th and it'll be at #34, so it won't be nice changing these things suddenly.
2. We've said that "In the next update we'll announce the final project name!", so it'll be not nice if we announce a second round instead.
3. It'd be more understandable if there are serious reasons for a second round, e.g. inconclusive results.
4. Postponing project name finalization might have impact on first releases. Ideally releases would have a final name already.

So I'd suggest having a second round only if voting results are inconclusive, e.g. the top contenders are really close.

Its a good idea to have a second round with a shortlist (https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance/issues/9#issuecomment-3858540). However there are some cons: 1. We've announced already that the voting will continue until May 20th and it'll be at https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance/issues/34, so it won't be nice changing these things suddenly. 2. We've said that "In the next update we'll announce the final project name!", so it'll be not nice if we announce a second round instead. 3. It'd be more understandable if there are serious reasons for a second round, e.g. inconclusive results. 4. Postponing project name finalization might have impact on first releases. Ideally releases would have a final name already. So I'd suggest having a second round only if voting results are inconclusive, e.g. the top contenders are really close.

antoon334 commented 2025年05月14日 15:19:57 +02:00

Given that, the current "temporary name" is going to win. It has the most votes as of now and I believe it won't change later. I'd assume that

1. People don't bother that much to go through all the suggested names there
2. People certainly don't monitor the issue for the new ones
3. People may have already been "got used to" the proposed name

Given that, the current "temporary name" is going to win. It has the most votes as of now and I believe it won't change later. I'd assume that 1. People don't bother that much to go through all the suggested names there 2. People certainly don't monitor the issue for the new ones 3. People may have already been "got used to" the proposed name

Aurareus commented 2025年05月14日 18:53:32 +02:00

@pastk wrote in #9 (comment):

Its a good idea to have a second round with a shortlist (#9 (comment)).

However there are some cons:

1. We've announced already that the voting will continue until May 20th and it'll be at #34, so it won't be nice changing these things suddenly.
2. We've said that "In the next update we'll announce the final project name!", so it'll be not nice if we announce a second round instead.
3. It'd be more understandable if there are serious reasons for a second round, e.g. inconclusive results.
4. Postponing project name finalization might have impact on first releases. Ideally releases would have a final name already.

So I'd suggest having a second round only if voting results are inconclusive, e.g. the top contenders are really close.

Very good points, I agree that it would be best to stick to the date already given.
If there was/is general agreement that a second round of voting with a shortlist of the most popular options would be preferable then I propose something like shortlisting some time before the announcement date (maybe May 17th?), running a poll for the remaining days before May 20th and updating the OP and making a post in #34 and this issue (and anywhere else it might be relevant) to very visibly link to the poll.

The only reason for a preference for a second round that I personally have is that I think naming/immediate "brand" appeal is extremely important as (silly as it may be) people are very susceptible to instantaneous aesthetic first impressions or "vibe", so I think it's worth trying to make doubly sure we identify the best option we can collectively come up with in terms of wide appeal and in conveying the essence of the app's guiding principles.

@pastk wrote in https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance/issues/9#issuecomment-4571027: > Its a good idea to have a second round with a shortlist (#9 (comment)). > > However there are some cons: > > 1. We've announced already that the voting will continue until May 20th and it'll be at #34, so it won't be nice changing these things suddenly. > > 2. We've said that "In the next update we'll announce the final project name!", so it'll be not nice if we announce a second round instead. > > 3. It'd be more understandable if there are serious reasons for a second round, e.g. inconclusive results. > > 4. Postponing project name finalization might have impact on first releases. Ideally releases would have a final name already. > > > So I'd suggest having a second round only if voting results are inconclusive, e.g. the top contenders are really close. Very good points, I agree that it would be best to stick to the date already given. If there was/is general agreement that a second round of voting with a shortlist of the most popular options would be preferable then I propose something like shortlisting some time before the announcement date (maybe May 17th?), running a poll for the remaining days before May 20th and updating the OP and making a post in #34 and this issue (and anywhere else it might be relevant) to very visibly link to the poll. The only reason for a preference for a second round that I personally have is that I think naming/immediate "brand" appeal is extremely important as (silly as it may be) people are very susceptible to instantaneous aesthetic first impressions or "vibe", so I think it's worth trying to make doubly sure we identify the best option we can collectively come up with in terms of wide appeal and in conveying the essence of the app's guiding principles.