28 Apr
2006
28 Apr
'06
5:57 a.m.
OK, it seems like the consensus is clear to me. So far, most people want to
use/keep LADSPA2. I ran it through a condorcet program, just to make sure,
but it't not in doubt. FWIW, by my count the pure "acceptable" numbers
came out as:
17 ladspa2
7 xap
6 peep
5 apa
4 sax
4 plux
3 rap
2 peeper
2 eep
1 wasap
1 sap
1 pea
1 openplux
1 lapa
1 fap
1 clap
1 chap
And the condorcet pattern was:
9 ladspa2
1 ladspa2>apa>sax
1 ladspa2>plux
1
ladspa2>sap>xap>peep>peeper>sax>fap>eep>clap>chap>apa>rap>pea>wasap>rap
1 ladspa2>lapa>plux>xap
1 openplux>plux>ladspa2
1 peep
1 peeper>peep>apa
1 plux>apa>ladspa2
1 sax>eep>xap
1 xap>apa>ladspa2
1 xap>peep
1 xap>rap>peep
1 xap>sax>peep>ladspa2
Only 23% of those voters would find LADSPA2 unacceptable, next best is XAP
which 68% would find unacceptable.
I wasn't especially rigourous, so I may have missed, or misinterpreted
someones vote. Someone could poll the LAU list if they felt inclined.
I think that we should give the people who's names appear on the original
.h file a veto, as were doing some radical changes to the design - though
hopefully still in the spirit of the original. It doesn't look like we'd
ever reach consensus on any other name though.
*sigh* I guess I should invest in an anti-RSI keyboard.
- Steve
28 Apr
28 Apr
9:19 a.m.
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
OK, it seems like the consensus is clear to me. So
far, most people want to
use/keep LADSPA2.
...
*sigh* I guess I should invest in an anti-RSI keyboard.
Emacs' Alt-/ is great. =)
--
Lars Luthman
PGP key: http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d00-llu/pgp_key.php
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
9:51 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: LADSPA2 name early consensus
Well, that's a little like saying 'Would you rather go to McDonalds or
that new burger joint nobody knows that might be a lot better but also
might be a lot worse?'
Perhaps if a new name is to be decided the benevolent dictator should
simply decide a new name is to be given and it is up to us to decide which.
Carlo
Steve Harris schrieb:
OK, it seems like the consensus is clear to me. So
far, most people want to
use/keep LADSPA2. I ran it through a condorcet program, just to make sure,
but it't not in doubt. FWIW, by my count the pure "acceptable" numbers
came out as:
17 ladspa2
7 xap
6 peep
5 apa
4 sax
4 plux
3 rap
2 peeper
2 eep
1 wasap
1 sap
1 pea
1 openplux
1 lapa
1 fap
1 clap
1 chap
And the condorcet pattern was:
9 ladspa2
1 ladspa2>apa>sax
1 ladspa2>plux
1
ladspa2>sap>xap>peep>peeper>sax>fap>eep>clap>chap>apa>rap>pea>wasap>rap
1 ladspa2>lapa>plux>xap
1 openplux>plux>ladspa2
1 peep
1 peeper>peep>apa
1 plux>apa>ladspa2
1 sax>eep>xap
1 xap>apa>ladspa2
1 xap>peep
1 xap>rap>peep
1 xap>sax>peep>ladspa2
Only 23% of those voters would find LADSPA2 unacceptable, next best is XAP
which 68% would find unacceptable.
I wasn't especially rigourous, so I may have missed, or misinterpreted
someones vote. Someone could poll the LAU list if they felt inclined.
I think that we should give the people who's names appear on the original
.h file a veto, as were doing some radical changes to the design - though
hopefully still in the spirit of the original. It doesn't look like we'd
ever reach consensus on any other name though.
*sigh* I guess I should invest in an anti-RSI keyboard.
- Steve
11:13 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: LADSPA2 name early consensus
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Carlo Capocasa wrote:
Well, that's a little like saying 'Would you rather go to McDonalds or
that new burger joint nobody knows that might be a lot better but also
might be a lot worse?'
Perhaps if a new name is to be decided the benevolent dictator should
simply decide a new name is to be given and it is up to us to decide which.
I don't think thats particularly helpful. There's not any agreement even
amongst people who dont think that LADSPA is a good name what a good name
is. So, I think saying "We can't use LADSPA2" wouldn't be especially
benevolent :)
That said, its up to the original LADSPA authors.
- Steve
4:29 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
OK, it seems like the consensus is clear to me. So
far, most people want to
use/keep LADSPA2. I ran it through a condorcet program, just to make sure,
but it't not in doubt. FWIW, by my count the pure "acceptable" numbers
came out as:
Most people who suggested we keed LADSPA said "LADSPA", not LADSPA2.
If we keep the name LADSPA, everything is going to have to say LADSPA2,
directory names, API calls...
"LADSPA2" looks like an ugly working name to me. --votes
-DR-
29 Apr
29 Apr
7:58 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:29:42 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Richard Furse also agrees, he said:
[talking about the PEA name, which he likes, but I don't]
OK, it seems like the consensus is clear to me.
So far, most people want to
use/keep LADSPA2. I ran it through a condorcet program, just to make sure,
but it't not in doubt. FWIW, by my count the pure "acceptable" numbers
came out as:
Most people who suggested we keed LADSPA said "LADSPA", not LADSPA2.
If we keep the name LADSPA, everything is going to have to say LADSPA2,
directory names, API calls...
"LADSPA2" looks like an ugly working name to me. --votes Really not sure about LADSPA2 - happy with just about
anything else! We
could always bill it as "LADSPA PEA" or suchlike if folk really care
about the Trademark.
I don't think that's strong enough to count as a veto, and he's away at
the moment, so I can't ask him. It's enough to want me to hope we can
reach a consensus on something other than LADSPA2 though.
For the record, I was initally in favour of just using LADSPA2 (I'm really
lazy), but he talked me out of it, hence the mail to the list asking for
votes.
- Steve
6812
days inactive
6813
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Carlo Capocasa -
Dave Robillard -
Lars Luthman -
Steve Harris