[RFC] LEP#1, Standardize the LoCo Team Display Names

[Charles Profitt]

On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 21:01 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > First let me say that I fully support the development of a respectful
> > and logically consistent way to name LoCo teams. I am positive that as a
> > group we can arrive at such a solution. Given that I do see some issues
> > with the current suggestion put forth in the original email.
> 
> Awesome. That's why it's an RFC and not a policy :)

A fantastic community driven and respectful way of doing things. I truly
appreciate the effort that is being under taken here. Thanks to all.

> >
> > I would recommend including the use of the word 'state' for US States
> > because this will help avoid conflicts such as:
> 
> Howabout we add a clause allowing state in the case of conflict?

I think that works very well.

> >
> > New York (the City) vs. New York (the state)
> > Washington (the City) and Washington (the state)
> > Kansas (the city) and (Kansas (the state)
> > Iowa (the City) and Iowa (the state)
> 
> I agree totally.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >
> > ---- suggestion ----
> > Allow the loco team to choose the name of their 'region'; which allows
> > for New York State, Washington State, etc.
> 
> That's fine, so long as it's consistent across the cases you mentioned
> 
> >
> > ---- clarification requested ----
> > Will previously grandfathered city locos be disbanded? (Chicago, Dallas,
> > Vancouver)
> 
> All the teams you've mentioned are really bad examples, because
> they're all so fscking() awesome.
> 
> We'll have to figure it out. For now, I'd say this is an edge-case
> that can be resolved over time. I know Texas has some state-identity
> issues, so we'll work through that as it comes up.

I agree they are awesome teams and those cities have 'strong identities'
as cities.

> >
> > Thanks,
> > Charles
> >
> >
> 
> For now, let's get a sane and consistent policy that works in 95% of
> cases, and we'll work on the last 5% in a way that's sane later on.
> 
> Love you all dearly, let's keep this great discussion up!
> 

Well said Paul.

Thanks,

Charles
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/attachments/20110629/80b97ab8/attachment.pgp>