W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Choosing names

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:48:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUF_jGBt5CWC2d8FBgZ13C=RkUBSQ4KeJr=Q4+-uCyzT=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I understand that this is important, but rather than poll for name
> preferences on every API point, here is what I propose we do:
>
> 1. The person generating the PR chooses the name they think best.
> 2. They announce their proposed change, making sure to include things
> like names.
> 2a. (Optionally) They describe alternatives they considered and the
> reasons they didn't choose them.
> 3. Everyone else does the usual standards forum thing of nitpicking
> names, or in reviewing the change.
>
> It's not clear that this would save time overall, but maybe by moving
> the nitpicking stage later in the process we can avoid the costs for
> uncontroversial things and it allows the person proposing a change to
> get on with the substantial aspects of the change.  Changing names
> when we collectively change our minds is a little tiresome, but not
> overly so.
>

​So far, I have been doing the following:

1.  Pick one (same as your #1)
2.  Announce the change (same as your #2)
2a.  Explain the pros and cons of the name options and ask "which do you
prefer?" (different than your #3)
3.  Everyone nitpicks (same as your #3)​


The difference then, is to say "I picked X over Y because Z" rather than
"We can pick between X and Y, and I picked X because of Z, but what do you
prefer?".  In other words, you want to allow bikeshedding, but not
encourage it?
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 01:49:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC