Some while back I suggested manifolio. But that breaches the four syllable rule :-)
How about Manifole? I'd say rather than bursting into votes, keep the discussion going, I suspect you'll know when you've got enough of the community behind you, and when it is then worth wrapping the whole thing up with a vote - at which point the vote is a mere formality. Worth giving it the effort now, see this recent post [1] - a name is going to stay with us all for a long time! Upayavira [1] http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2010/09/first-time-right On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 20:08 -0400, Karl Wright wrote: > Actually, an abbreviation of "AMCF" is not bad either.... kinda like > that myself. But I'm still not sure I like any of the book title > choices I've offered myself here. > > Do we dare use "Manifold Connectors Framework in Action"? and > describe AMCF as "Manifold Connectors Framework" at times? > > Karl > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If this is adopted, I'm thinking we could use it in the following ways: > > > > Abbreviation: "MCF" > > Short name: "ManifoldCF" > > Qualified short name: "Apache ManifoldCF" > > Fully qualified and unabbreviated name: "the Apache Manifold > > Connectors Framework" > > > > I'm not quite sure what the world will think of that last usage, since > > it does not contain the trademark. Then again, neither does the > > abbreviation. But I'm not sure I'd dare make the book title be > > "Apache Manifold Connectors Framework in Action". It would probably > > need to be "Apache ManifoldCF in Action", or just "ManifoldCF in > > Action". > > > > Grant, you wrote a book. What do you think? Which title should be used? > > > > Karl > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jack Krupansky > > <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >> -1 for me. Standing alone it's an okay name, but trying to actually use it > >> is a pain (and we might as well call it MCF). But I'll certainly go along > >> with the majority. > >> > >> -- Jack Krupansky > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> From: "Karl Wright" <daddy...@gmail.com> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:25 PM > >> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF > >> > >>> Ok, I just want an up-or-down vote on ManifoldCF at this point. +1 from > >>> me. > >>> > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 9/28/10 7:10 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Fair enough. I could live with any of the other choices, but having this > >>>>> "CF" suffix really messes a lot of stuff up and is less practical than > >>>>> any of the other names. Basically, it means we may end up having to use > >>>>> "MCF" as the shorthand name. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wait... stop the presses... I just realized that "ManifoldCF" violates > >>>>> selection rule #5: > >>>>> > >>>>> (5) No more than 4 syllables > >>>>> > >>>>> Man-I-fold-C-F (or is in Ma-ni-fold-C-F.) > >>>>> > >>>>> That's five syllables. > >>>> > >>>> ManifoldCF was already in the running. And its obvious that having too > >>>> many syllables is not a problem - it was the second most voted name - > >>>> for the *second* time at least (who can track all these votes). > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> And, technically, I would say that it at least half violates the spirit > >>>>> of rule #1: > >>>>> > >>>>> (1) It's a single word > >>>>> > >>>>> It is a single word plus this extra "CF" acronym thing. > >>>> > >>>> That's a stretch that the rational part of my brain is going to ignore. > >>>> This is no argument. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So, next candidate on the list was... Manicon, 19 > >>>>> > >>>>> Unless it has legal problems, it fits our requirements. > >>>> > >>>> Okay, lets vote again. For some reason ManifoldCF will stop topping the > >>>> list why? Everyone will come to their senses? Some of us are so sick of > >>>> this name thing we won't vote, and if your lucky those will be the > >>>> ManifoldCF supporters? I mean come on... > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- Jack Krupansky > >>>>> > >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> From: "Karl Wright" <daddy...@gmail.com> > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:52 PM > >>>>> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jack, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's one of the main purposes of having everyone list choices by > >>>>>> priority. If one doesn't work, there are others you can use. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't want to open that vote again unless the community decides that > >>>>>> the list of candidate names was simply not rich enough to furnish a > >>>>>> good choice. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Karl > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Jack Krupansky > >>>>>> <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Or Nocon or Noman. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I know people are tired of voting, but I think we should really > >>>>>>> re-vote for > >>>>>>> the revised candidate list with Connex removed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> From: "Mark Miller" <markrmil...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:43 PM > >>>>>>> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename Apache Connectors Framework to ManifoldCF > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> hmmm...I think I'm all voted out. Can we just call it nothing? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 9/28/10 6:40 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Vote +1 to rename Apache Connectors Framework to Apache ManifoldCF. > >>>>>>>>> Vote -1 to keep the project name of Connectors Framework, or to > >>>>>>>>> retain > >>>>>>>>> Connex, if that wins its vote. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This vote also expires end of day on Friday. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Note: "Manifold" is a trademark for a GIS software product. However, > >>>>>>>>> I agree with Grant that ManifoldCF appearing under the Apache label > >>>>>>>>> should be safe to be used. But you should recognize that this vote > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> not merely a referendum on the name itself, but also on the > >>>>>>>>> suitability of the name in a legal context. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Karl > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >
