Feature #11140

Rename Tails (back) into TⒶILS

Added by anonym 2016-02-19 01:28:58 . Updated 2016-05-03 11:56:57 .

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
Elevated
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
Start date:
2016-02-19
Due date:
% Done:

50%

Feature Branch:
feature/11140-TⒶILS
Type of work:
Discuss
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

Some of us feel that this name conveys the nature of our project and, more importantly, what we want to achieve, more explicitly.


Files


Subtasks


History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2016-02-19 01:34:54

  • Feature Branch set to feature/11140-TⒶILS

#2 Updated by anonym 2016-02-19 01:38:41

  • Assignee set to sajolida
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

I pushed the branch under another name, feature/11140-T-CIRCLED-LATIN-CAPITAL-LETTER-A-ILS, in case the unicode character causes issues for anyone.

Sajolida, what do you think? Can this make it into Tails 2.2? And perhaps we are blocked by updating the logo and other promotion materials? If so such action items can be created as sub-tickets of this one for proper tracking of this effort.

#3 Updated by anonym 2016-02-19 01:39:08

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 0 to 30

#4 Updated by anonym 2016-02-19 02:16:56

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to anonym
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed
  • Type of work changed from Promote to Discuss

Actually, there is gonna be a vote at Fri Feb 19 03:00:00 UTC 2016. I will facilitate the voting.

#5 Updated by anonym 2016-02-19 03:29:12

  • Assignee changed from anonym to sajolida
  • % Done changed from 30 to 50
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

Voting results:

  • Number of votes in favour of s/Tails/TⒶILS/g: 2 (100%)
  • Number of votes against: 0 (0%)

Please merge’n’push [0], sajolida!

Regarding the potential blockers I mentioned above, let’s not allow counter-productive ideas like that to hinder this undeniable refinement. This optimistic strategy is in strict agreement with our new approach of Constant Incremental Improvement and Discrete Self-Evaluation.

[0] Merge’n’push: a merge policy replacing “review’n’merge” effective immediately for members of the RM team. By employing Discrete Self-Evaluation and Post-Agile Engineering, officials of the RM team are allowed to review their own code and assess QA status, but still have to instruct another project member to merge the branch. Note that refusing or delaying such a merge request is not allowed for non-members of the RM committee.

Signed,
Eternal Release Manager anonym

#6 Updated by bertagaz 2016-02-19 09:16:24

I’m a Discrete Self-Evaluation fan! But I think we should try the Post-Modern Engineering techniques too.

Thx ERM for this note. :D

#7 Updated by muri 2016-02-19 14:40:58

we should also use names for the releases, like ‘bedazzled bakunin’, ‘nefarious nettlau’ or ‘glorious goldman’

#8 Updated by spriver 2016-02-19 14:52:31

Did we actually have a daily scrum on this? I think we need one really bad.

muri’s proposal is quite important, we should vote. shall we do them in alphabetical order?

#9 Updated by anonym 2016-02-19 16:26:33

spriver wrote:
> Did we actually have a daily scrum on this? I think we need one really bad.
>
> muri’s proposal is quite important, we should vote. shall we do them in alphabetical order?

I’m happy to announce that me and intrigeri has already voted on muri’s proposal, with unanimous approval.

#10 Updated by intrigeri 2016-02-19 16:30:53

> Did we actually have a daily scrum on this? I think we need one really bad.

Thanks for this proposal! I think that indeed, a daily stand up meeting would be key for community bonding. Or shall we call it the daily rise up meeting? There’s potential for confusion for all potential Riseup team members among us, though. Maybe this should be discussed on tails-ux@ (or upstream?) first.

#11 Updated by cypherpunks 2016-02-20 03:29:46

Please consider how this unnecessary, extremist political statement will affect URLs, Wikipedia articles, the typesetting of print articles, and the ease of which anyone wanting to write about this software can do so.

#12 Updated by anonym 2016-02-20 14:32:09

cypherpunks wrote:
> Please consider how this unnecessary, extremist political statement will affect URLs, Wikipedia articles, the typesetting of print articles, and the ease of which anyone wanting to write about this software can do so.

(This is all a silly joke. :))

#13 Updated by sajolida 2016-02-21 11:34:09

Here’s the new version of the logo. I contacted the UX team at NUMⒶ (they changed name as well) and we’ll organize a focus group at La Maison du Bitcoin on July 14.

Regarding version names I think we should be more inclusive in terms of political agenda and I’m proposing instead (in alphabetical order): “drunk developer”, “stoned sysadmin”, “tripped translator”, and “wrecked writer”.

Much ♥ :)

#14 Updated by sajolida 2016-02-21 11:39:53

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

Your branch doesn’t build: https://jenkins.tails.boum.org/job/build_Tails_ISO_feature-11140-t-circled-latin-capital-letter-a-ils/1/consoleText :)

#15 Updated by intrigeri 2016-02-21 13:04:33

> Your branch doesn’t build:

Yes, this is an example of our new Liquid Builds (lb) approach, which is more flexible than the Old World’s simplistic and binary “it works” vs. “it does not work” separation.

#16 Updated by intrigeri 2016-02-27 10:13:54

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to anonym
  • Target version deleted (Tails_2.2)

I’m sorry I won’t have time to fix the build failure in time for 2.2.

#17 Updated by intrigeri 2016-05-03 11:56:57

  • Status changed from In Progress to Rejected
  • Assignee deleted (anonym)