Project

General

Profile

Feature #11140

Rename Tails (back) into TⒶILS

Added by anonym about 4 years ago. Updated almost 4 years ago.

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

50%

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

Description

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

tails-logo-drawing-revamped.png View (4.9 KB) sajolida, 02/21/2016 11:25 AM

Associated revisions

Revision 0e0673d9 (diff)
Added by intrigeri about 4 years ago

Rename the project: back to the roots.

This is the first iteration in the implementation of our new communication
strategy, as outlined during the February, 1917 monthly meeting.

Thanks to anonym for reminding me about it!

Refs: #11140

Revision 221e765e (diff)
Added by intrigeri about 4 years ago

Rename file to match new project name.

refs: #11140

Revision c923e2eb (diff)
Added by intrigeri about 4 years ago

Revert overly avant-garde change, the masses are not ready for it yet.

We didn't communicate to t-p-s the new project name yet.
Some reeducation will be needed.

refs: #11140

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri about 4 years ago

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

#2 Updated by anonym about 4 years ago

  • 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 about 4 years ago

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

#4 Updated by anonym about 4 years ago

  • 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 about 4 years ago

  • 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 about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

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

#8 Updated by spriver about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

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

#15 Updated by intrigeri about 4 years ago

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 about 4 years ago

  • 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 almost 4 years ago

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

Also available in: Atom PDF