Tao Voting, the New Name for Disputable Voting!

#21

I think the goal of the name is to be catchy and interesting so that people want to learn more about it and engage with it.

I have to agree w this as i’m an example of someone who was intrigued enough by the moloch references to dive into the topic

having the people who are promoting the product to the audience chime in does make the most sense imo

naming, and language in general, is fundamentally an effort to define things in ways that infer meaning so those things can be understood.

even if normal words were used for the naming, understanding the word and its background has nothing to do with understanding the underlying mechanisms behind the concepts at hand, so documentation will be there and will be referred to by people engaging with these systems either way

i DO think we should avoid any kind of political, religion, ethnicity, country related terminology.

I agree with the purpose or sentiment behind this view, but I wouldn’t really call using related terminology for naming one feature within a whole system that has a bunch of different features associating the organization with any specific movement or political / religious views at hand :thinking:

2 Likes
#22

While I originally was for Tao voting, I don’t think tyranny of the majority is a good way to decide naming.

There seems be enough people who are strongly against.

We should respect that.

5 Likes
#23

Hello everyone this is great to see members coming up with names for DCV. I have been pondering for quite some time solid names to brainstorm but it has been hard to come up with something good. While i really like TAO vote for the deep meaning @griffgreen has outlined i do think it is abit of a play on word with DAO which might get confusing. I also think that disputable conviction voting is very confusing when it comes to those three words combined which quite frankly doesn’t give any insights to someone that is new. I do believe branding is important so i have disagree with @willjgriff for leaving it as is. I propose a new name that respects leaving out political/religious views etc… what does everyone think of Commonwealth Vote? It has some deep meaning, definitely not as cool as TAO but does come equipped with some deeper connotations.

Commonwealth definitions described as: Wiki

A commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically, it has sometimes been synonymous with “republic”. The noun “commonwealth”, meaning “public welfare, general good or advantage”, dates from the 15th century.[1] Originally a phrase (the common-wealth or the common wealth – echoed in the modern synonym “public wealth”), it comes from the old meaning of “wealth”, which is “well-being”, and is itself a loose translation of the Latin res publica (republic).[2] The term literally meant “common well-being”. In the 17th century, the definition of “commonwealth” expanded from its original sense of “public welfare” or “commonweal” to mean “a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state”.[3][4]

While this does not necessarily tell others what the mechanism is, Commonwealth voting could be considered as a vote for the greater good (the community). If the proposal that is being voted on is not good for the Commonwealth it can be disputed.

Open to ideas and feedback on Commonwealth as a name for DCV

#24

We’re discussing the name for disputable voting not disputable conviction voting btw.

2 Likes
#25

Too long winded - and too much historical baggage imho

1 Like
#27

What’s the deal with the name though?

I agree that ‘Decision Vote’ is not ideal, first of all it isn’t that nice of a name, it does not suggest what it is for, since all votes are decisions at the end of the day.

If these are the votes to change things at the core of a DAO why not looking at “core” synonyms or something like that and start from there. If we find a name that apart from being informative sounds nice we can call it a day, and if not, at least we end up with a name with which the user can identify in an easier way what it is for.

If anything we may want to look for garden-related names.

1 Like
#28

I have to agree that when i heard Tao Voting i had no idea about what it was about and had to go to the TEC community to learn what it meant. Disputable Voting always was clear about what it was which was helpful if you were new and trying to understand new concepts.
Sure it’s not fun… but that’s what Gardens is about. Gardens is supposed to be the branding and name people give to this governance model which uses disputable conviction voting - “I am part of a Garden”.
What will happen if we name it Tao voting is that people will come to us and ask what Tao voting is and we will just reply that it is disputable voting and everyone will just look a bit awkward in the process :smiley:

The question here is about how generic garden is to be used as a brand. When people say Moloch you know they are talking about DAOs. When anyone mentions Gardens the likelihood of it being about DAOs is actually quite low. So yeah… i don’t disagree our names aren’t very iconic or associable.

4 Likes
#29

I wanted to participate in the vote but honestly am not sure of how we can properly find a solution that works for everyone.

I agree with Will that names or notations of any kind are a way to give as many info in the most limited amount of time. But, at the same time, I agree with griff that a catchy name is an equally important element.

I won’t even start with the fact that even Disputable Conviction Voting is complicated for non-English speakers, because otherwise we go down the rabbit hole and it’s hard to get out from there.

Personally TAO doesn’t sound bad to me, acronymous are short enough to make people ask more about what they may mean.
About a gardens-related name, that can also create more confusion. It may have a branding guideline, but it requires extra effort to be explained or researched and that may not work.

I’ll think of something as well

2 Likes
#30

Well said bruh … But it’s enough to start with anything… rather something

#31

Just for signaling… Sadly there is no clear decision making process outlined for Naming Things…

1 Like
#32

We’ve learnt from this. My suggestion is to outline a process based on the rule of non-opposition - any member of the swarm should be able to veto a suggested name change.

A signalling poll doesn’t have much value in that context.

4 Likes
#33

which is the differences between explaining to someone else why is called tao voting instead of “plant voting” ? doesn’t make any sense

1 Like
#34

This is related to voting in gardens right? Just call it Gardens Voting. It keeps the brand related to gardens, people will know it’s about voting within gardens, and it makes more sense than TAO Voting which is not relevant to the brand at all.

#35

Well this is an exciting governance learning… but deadlines are what they are. So it all sort of sucks.

Sadly the TEC got bad advice about this name a couple months ago and built up a lot of documentation, educational materials and general awareness around “Tao Voting”… and I don’t see a solid alternative name presented anywhere…

We are ready to launch our dashboard this week and will do all the param parties and other educational activities using the branding of “Tao voting”

It’s too much work to change it at this point… and even if we could change it, I don’t know what you guys are actually going with :-/

See a preview of the dashboard here: Learn 3 | Commons Dashboard

I linked to the Tao Voting blurb, which we just recorded an audio for… which is why i feel like its past the point of no return at this point.

2 Likes
#36

The bad advice was my fault. But you’re being disingenuous here.

Looking back at our past conversations, we settled on Tao voting around the 24th of August. By the 13th of September it was clear that some were not happy with this choice. On our side, we chose to revert back to our original name - Decision voting - out of respect.

You’re free to do what you want, but please don’t try to impose your approach on us.

5 Likes
#37

It isn’t anyone’s fault boss, coming to an agreement should be prior here not necessarily the name

#38

I don’t see any problem with TEC using their preferred name for the voting app, being it Tao Voting or anyone else. I don’t think this conversation goes anywhere productive. For the user, it is going to be presented as “decision voting” and nobody is discussing that. I guess this is what it matters.

1 Like
#39

I’m pretty sure we’re discussing what the name will be to users, especially considering this: Learn 3 | Commons Dashboard

#40

We are finding ourselves in a weird situation due to not listening the ones to the others. Having been reached this point, TEC cannot impose a name on 1hive, but 1hive cannot impose a name to TEC either. If they want to use a different name to refer to disputable voting, they are very free of doing that. I am still very grateful of the work they have done documenting it. I hope 1hive can build on top of it in the future.

4 Likes
#41

I didn’t realize there was an idea that there needs to be a consensus between 1Hive and TEC.
TEC is already separated, working on the Commons, while 1Hive is working on Gardens.
When it came up, back in another era, that the two projects were significantly different enough to warrant different names, it seemed like a small matter.
Now I understand.
Why TEC calling a voting by the punny Tao name should cause so much as a disgruntled ripple at 1Hive escapes me.

The differences are what makes us beautiful.

2 Likes