I hope you don't feel I'm bitching. :-) I will be sending through copies of the blanket permission via our local herald. I'll also mention the petition at the next get-together.
But I stand by what I've said - turn the process over. Give people plenty of notice to send in a denial of conflict letter. If they don't, then clearly they don't care. Use the inertia to your advantage. That way people who truly want a unique name can have it. It will open up the name pool considerably.
But seriously if you submit a blanket permission to conflict then there can be no accusation of bitching. And if you can get others to do the same then you will be a gem :-)
I agree that turning the process on it's head would be good. I think that a significant proportion of name submissions will need to be accompanied by permissions to conflict to make it happen though.
Name uniqueness is the greatest of the evils that should be fixed, but I don't expect it will go away anytime soon, if ever, because in general most people in the Society either want name uniquness or don't care enough about it to do more than bitch about it on mailing lists. If I am flooded with blanket permission to conflict letters then I will take that back, but I'm not expecting more than two.
I'm not sure I agree with name uniqueness being one of the greatest evils, but to the rest I say "bingo". I've told many people and I'll keep telling them: When the time comes that the CoA is innundated with blanket letters of permission to conflict, both ones for already registered names, and ones submitted with new name submissions, that's when it will revisit the issue of name uniqueness. I really don't expect it would ever happen before then.
It's probably just the greatest evil this week to be honest :-)
I do have to keep telling myself that posting about SCA compatible names was my job and the right thing to do and its not my fault that it has produced a furor.
Comments 6
But I stand by what I've said - turn the process over. Give people plenty of notice to send in a denial of conflict letter. If they don't, then clearly they don't care. Use the inertia to your advantage. That way people who truly want a unique name can have it. It will open up the name pool considerably.
Reply
But seriously if you submit a blanket permission to conflict then there can be no accusation of bitching. And if you can get others to do the same then you will be a gem :-)
I agree that turning the process on it's head would be good. I think that a significant proportion of name submissions will need to be accompanied by permissions to conflict to make it happen though.
Reply
I'm not sure I agree with name uniqueness being one of the greatest evils, but to the rest I say "bingo". I've told many people and I'll keep telling them: When the time comes that the CoA is innundated with blanket letters of permission to conflict, both ones for already registered names, and ones submitted with new name submissions, that's when it will revisit the issue of name uniqueness. I really don't expect it would ever happen before then.
Reply
I do have to keep telling myself that posting about SCA compatible names was my job and the right thing to do and its not my fault that it has produced a furor.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment