<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>IMO the problem with the process was that two questions were mingled up:<br>
1. should we retain the name? and<br>2. which three names do we want to vote on if we want a new name?<br><br>Because of this, the existing LA name turned into one of the options of a "new name" rather than being a filter of whether to go for voting.<br>
<br>I can't believe this would have been intended by the council.<br><br>In the interest of fairness, I would therefore suggest to go forward with the second round of voting on a "new name" in which the top three (or maybe four) names) are set as choice, which includes "LA". This will then give a much fairer statement of whether the community actually does want to keep the old name.<br>
<br>Otherwise we will always have the question hanging around about "what if the voting process had been different...".<br><br>Regards,<br>Silvia.<br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style>I have to agree a little with Silvia.</div><div style><br></div><div style>We all remember the fiasco with Howard's Republican referendum, where instead of asking if people wanted Australia to be a Republic (Yes/No), a number of questions were asked instead, effectively skewing the results in the direction he wanted it to go in.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Not saying it was intended thus by the LA Council, but it would have been better to ahve the first round of voting as:</div><div style><br></div><div style>Should Linux Australia change it's name?</div>
<div style>Yes</div><div style>No</div><div style><br></div><div style>If No prevailed, then nothing more needed to be done.</div><div style><br></div><div style>If Yes prevailed, then we could have moved to stage 2 in which people voted from the list of names.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The way the voting was done, it seems to have skewed the results a little bit in favour of no-name change by including it in the list of names.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Anyway, just my thoughts on the issue.<br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style>Whether the council will take this amended approach or not is to be seen. I hope they do, because it seems to be a more fair way of determine whether Linux Australia's name is to be changed. First, determine if there is enough people wanting a change, then move on from there.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Anestis.</div>-- <br>Anestis Kozakis | <a href="mailto:kenosti@gmail.com">kenosti@gmail.com</a> | <a href="http://www.akozakis.id.au/">http://www.akozakis.id.au/</a>
</div></div>