Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Charles Merriam]

I tweaked the proposal to have a specific proposal for release naming.
 The overly engineered details are at
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/2008_Debate_of_Build_and_Release

Basically, I propose releases names of <organization> <component>
<year> <major_version><sequence_number> [ - <special_build> ]:

OLPC Sugar 2008 A1                 ; by OLPC, component is Sugar;
First major (API) version of 2008.  Sequence 1.
OLPC Activity Bundle 2008 A2 - G1G1 Update
OLPC Literature Bundle 2008 A3 - G1G1 Update
OLPC Activity Bundle 2008 A4 - Mexico Version
OLPC Sugar 2008 B1
OLPC Activity Bundle 2008 B2 - G1G1 Update
OLPC School Server 2008 A12
OLPC Sugar 2009 A15
OLPC Activities 2009 B14
OLPC Great Books 2009 B15 - Peru
SPE Student Bundle 2009 A1 - Mexico Approved by Sec. de Education

note that "2009 B15" is enough to uniquely identify a release.

And developer builds with <group> <branch> <version_in_branch> method:

OS BerryPie 94 ; build 94 by OS for code name BerryPie (for 2009 A.1)
Mesh hopping 5 ; build 5 in the hopping branch the Mesh group.
Mesh hopping 6 - Final ; what group hopes is a finished branch with a
new feature
OS BerryPie 95 - Merge ; merges in finished hopping branch.
OS BerryPie 96 - Unmerge
Mesh hopping 7 - Final ; really.  That was the last unstable part!
Mesh lowpower 1 ; new branch for another new feature.

So, the two competing ideas are functional release names for
functional release styles <major>.<minor> and calendar name styles
<year> <major><minor>.  This is a deep question:  is OLPC willing to
commit to time-based releases?

What is an acceptable consensus before OLPC just goes with naming scheme?