Definitely -1 on changing the name. It's already "cooked" into everything associated with the project. There are links (and hard copy references) to the name and the web site(s) all over the place. How long do you want to be forced to maintain DNS or HTTP entries to forward users from the current names to whatever you might pick for new ones?
I would be perfectly happy to see a new logo however. And the last time I looked, there were a lot more colors than just red or blue.... Kevin On Oct 30, 2014 6:11 AM, "Brad Noble" <[email protected]> wrote: > *SyncDB* > The database that syncs. > > Logo would embody that idea. > > > > [image: Inactive hide details for Jason Smith ---10/30/2014 04:40:26 > AM---On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache]Jason > Smith ---10/30/2014 04:40:26 AM---On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Noah > Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Blue is nice. :) But the > > From: Jason Smith <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: 10/30/2014 04:40 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Improved CouchDB logo > ------------------------------ > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Blue is nice. :) But then that tempts me to change the name too. I > > mean, if we're ever going to do this, now is the time. It's important > > to note though that we have a very STRONG brand, and changing it in a > > big will be expensive. > > > > Change the name! Change the name! > > Like all transitions, it seems scary. But once it's done we will all wonder > what we were so worried about. > > The brand is strong, but the question is, how much of that strength can we > keep, and how much do we lose. > > I think we will keep nearly all of it, plus we will get tons of attention > with a 2.0 release and name change. And as if that already isn't enough, we > get the opportunity to walk away from a ton of branding baggage and > trademark problems. > > Change the name! > >
