Voting closed 30th September 2003
To vote: place your name underneath your preferred name below; update the count beside the name. Vote for only one candidate...
Ack AckNameDiscuss (1)
Atom AtomNameDiscuss (59 )
MorbusIff, AaronSwartz, MaciejCeglowski, LucasThompson, JeremyGray, SeanPalmer, DaveWalker, FrancoisHodierne, DannyAyers, GaryF
MarkSiegal, LesOrchard, JamesAylett, RussellBeattie, BillDehora, JoeGregorio, KenMacLeod, KenCoar, MikeDavies, SamRuby
EmmanuelDecarie, MichaelPate, DeanAllen, PeteProdoehl, Jim Ley, JamesCox, DaveWarnock, AntonioCavedoni, JohnBeimler, BrentSimmons
DeveloperDude, KevinMarks, YoanBlanc, BradChoate, MarkPilgrim, CamMcVey, ScottHanselman, ScottReynen, DiegoDoval, StefanTilkov
LanceLavandowska, EricVitiello, DavidCzarnecki, TimBray, PhilippeJanvier, JeremyAshcraft, RichardBoyer, JasonLefkowitz, CyrilFievet, RichHall
KevinLynch, BillHumphries, StanFinley, LizLawley, NickChalko, FrançoisGranger, d8uv, TravisMoretti, TimBray, ZhangYining - add your vote here 10 per line
Feedcast FeedcastNameDiscuss (5)
GoBright GoBrightNameDiscuss (1)
Jazz JazzNameDiscuss (1)
Kitak KitakNameDiscuss (0)
Nota NotaNameDiscuss (4)
Zing ZingNameDiscuss (6)
None of the above NoneOfTheAboveDiscuss (1)
Keep it usable, short.
Make it unique, memorable.
Be general, i.e. don't limit the name by tying it to one application.
Multicultural: The name should resonate, positively, in most languages.
Legal Strength, i.e. name clash, trademarks, etc.
Quirkiness, substance encouraged.
Usable as a noun & verb.
[B] y'know atom has been used for so long people are used to it, ... sorry, dorky insert
[AsbjornUlsberg] Is it possible to vote for several options, but only once per option? Maybe we should define some VoteGuidelines?
[SingingBanzo] I just added a couple of lines from the last vote process. Anyway, I also like various of these candidates, and if the voting is close between others (not my proposal, I mean), perhaps I change my vote.
[SingingBanzo] Hey Rick, Feedcast is not among the current ProjectNameProposals and was already rejected in the last voting (NameFinalVoteArchive). Why don't you pick another one? Come on, don't make this infinite.
[AsbjornUlsberg] +1. Please remove your name and proposal, Rick, and vote for something else.
[TomasJogin] -1. Vote for whateverthehellyouwant, Rick.
[AsbjornUlsberg] The problem is that Feedcast wasn't on the new proposal list before august 29th, so formally it shouldn't be voted on either. Anther point, which SingingBanzo points out, is that Feedcast already has been rejected once.
[TomasJogin] There is no consensus as to wether the majority vote for None Of The Above meant that all proposed names were forever disqualified, or simply that the majority wanted other proposals to vote for. (By the way, the option "None Of The Above" was not introduced until a week into the previous vote, either.)
[JasonLefkowitz] Are we really voting? Not many people seem to have participated. What's the deal?
[AsbjornUlsberg] Yes, we're voting. Why the participation is so low, I can't explain, but it's announced on the FrontPage and other places, so it shouldn't be too difficult to discover. Maybe an email should be sent out to the atom-syntax email list?
[TomasJogin] Maybe a lot of us don't really believe that this is the "final" vote, either. If the past is anything to go by, some people are probably waiting for guidance from one of the (self-proclaimed?) A-list bloggers. And some of us just plain don't care anymore.
[AsbjornUlsberg] True. Though, I feel that this voting-round isn't as ad-hoc and hysterical as the previous ones, plus all the names have been much more thoroughly checked for copyright issues, discussed, etc., before this vote began. I think there is greater potential for ending up with a final name this round than any of the previous.
[TomasJogin] The previous round's trademark/patent conflict checks were just as thorough as this round's. The problem with the previous round seems to be that most people (the majority at least) didn't care for any of the alternatives.
[MartinAtkins] Someone needs to decide on a vote closing date or else this vote is pointless. I suspect that the lack of a closing date is one of the things putting off voters. An impending closing date plus some publicity will likely make people eager to get their opinions heard.
[SeanPalmer] +1 This vote doesn't have much of a professionally-conducted aura to it. I've set the closing date to 30th September for now; it's a balance between giving a date which is impending and overbearing enough to get lots of votes in, and the belief that since this is the nth round of voting, people are by now hardened skeptics as to the efficacy of the process.
[ScottReynen] Am I correct in thinking that we can change our votes at any time before the deadline?
[AsbjornUlsberg] No one is preventing you, so go ahead and change it. I've already changed mine a couple of times.
Does anyone want to go lollersk8ing?
[ArsAlias] the ex "rat olympics" naming and rating system: http://rats.nebrwesleyan.edu/rate/rate.php
[GaryF] Not to be too pessimistic, but I very much doub that any of these ideas will make it to the public. Sure there will be a winner (currently looking like Nota), but with the voting this low I sadly doubt that anyone will take the vote seriously.
[AsbjornUlsberg] Sadly, I have to agree with you, and I wish I knew the recipe to get more people to vote. It's scary to see the lack of participation and activity on the Wiki these days. The atom-syntax list is finally seeing some activity again, but this Wiki just gets lesser and lesser updates.
[GaryF] The recipe? Have names that don't sound like bad concept cars... Just my opinion.
[CyrilFievet] This format is called Atom in ubiquity throughout the blogging community (from the hold-it-note). I'm not sure of that. The present wiki has pie in its URL, and the main blog on the subject is named Formerly Echo... The name Atom is fine to me, but why was it dropped out in the first place?
[TomasJogin] Why not "just use" Echo then? Seems like people are less divided over Echo than over Atom.
[MorbusIff] Echo has already been obsoletely by popular use: it's "Formerly Echo" blogs, it's "atom-syntax", it's "let's talk about Atom". I'm not arguing that Atom is a better name than Echo, Nota, or any others. I'm arguing that everyone who is discussing the format is using Atom in someway already, and changing everything to something else is a backwards step.
[AndrewCates] well atom is was and for the record I think its a great name.
see NameFinalVoteArchive for other names that failed or were not vetted in time, and for the previous vote process