The discussion allowing None of The Above on NameFinalVote is at NameFinalVoteDiscuss

None of The Above is abbreviated Nota.

What Does a Nota Vote Mean?

[JesseJamesGarrett] I don't understand what a vote for "none of the above" is intended to accomplish. Does it mean "throw out all the names under consideration and start over"?

What Else Could a Nota Vote Mean?

Hmmm, Nota could be considered short for the Latin phrase "nota bene" meaning "note well" - maybe a good esperanto-ish like name for the project, and people who need acronyms can "know" that is stands for none of the above, so you get the metahistorical humor thing happening too. Pronounced "note-uh," btw...

What Next

[SeanPalmer] If we get a NOTA win, then to stop us from going around in circles, perhaps we should cede the process to some professionals, with initial wiki involvement. Specifically:-

  1. Create an OpenPoll to get a shortlist of 10 or so names. Any name can be voted for--even those perhaps unfairly & brusquely thrown out because of trademark concerns.

  2. Give the shortlist to professional legal experts for vetting. Sam Ruby has been suggesting this for weeks now, and has stated on his Weblog that he has had offers. If 0 names result from the vetting, go to step 1. Else if 1 name results from the vetting, then use that name. Else go to step 3.

  3. Give the new list to professional marketing/PR experts, and have them choose the best one. The problem with wiki voting is that each person gets one vote, but not all people are equally qualified to deem which name is most suitable.

This would stop us from going around in circles, and ensure that the name is sound from a legal and marketing point of view, whilst also being popular with wiki participants.

Isn't the continuing namelessness of this format a bigger liability than selecting a less-than-absolutely-perfect name that slices, dices, and makes Julienne fries? It's disappointing to see so many people choosing to perpetuate the problem rather than working towards a solution. Here's my vote for you none-of-the-abovers: Rally behind one of the existing names, revive one of the removed ones, or promote an alternative. [RogersCadenhead]

[KenMacLeod] I don't believe the lack of a final name is a liability. A working name, like Pie, for example, would be perfectly fine over the next several months before the final specs are able to be published. That gives time to truly clear names.

As a side note: it is okay to vote for "None of the Above" just because I don't like the name FeedCast? - LeonardoHerrera

[RickThomas] Gee folks, this is a wiki. A poll has no standing except as one way to consensus, which clearly there isn't. It's not like some sclerotic political system rigged against the marginalized Notas. Here, anyone can add a candidate, change his vote, or change the process any time. The simple solution is to suspend the poll and reopen the nominations.

[RickThomas] Also, to the extent that a Nota vote is just a -1 for FeedCast, it doesn't count. As a precedent -1 didn't count against Atom. The only fair vote is straight positive votes for vetted candidates.

[RickThomas] You seem to think that 27 Nota votes will somehow erase 44 Oota votes. That is obviously wrong. Only the owners of those votes can change or erase them. A Nota vote only says the voter is not willing to participate in a consensus now, until there's an acceptable candidate. NameFinalVote doesn't "fail"; it is suspended until it can be the basis of a consensus. The Nota block has bought a delay.

That said it seems to me that Notas now have an obligation to "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Come up with a qualified name you can support, a name that will draw my vote away from FeedCast, a name so cool that it brings in 100 new voters. But I'm not willing to drop my vote in favor of a hypothetical.

One more way of looking at this: A Nota vote literally means you voted "None of the above", nothing more than that. (Millions of other people also voted for none of the above.) (1) This is not at all logically equivalent to a separate question of "Eliminate these candidates from consideration. Yes/No" (2) Implicitly that question failed because more there are more votes for candidates than Nota. and (3) Even if the question was posed and succeeded it would have no force. The "banned" candidates would still eligible. Where is a "write-in" more welcome than on a wiki?

[RogersCadenhead] I removed the following text from the NameFinalVote page. It made it sound like voting for NoneOfTheAbove is an officially santioned way to scuttle the current vote, when it appears that the quote is simply a definition of what "None of the Above" means in a general electoral sense:

[WWW]'None of the Above' definition: "If 'None of the Above' wins a plurality---more votes than any other candidate---a special election is called with new candidates."

[JasonCosper] I'm actually for calling the project NOTA just so we can move on with it.