I think that you misunderstand why the name must be changed. It's not
a marketing thing. Its because the name collides with other similar
external projects and should be changed. Given that, we may as well
choose a name now and move on.
Regards,
Alan
On Dec 30, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Tim Veil wrote:
I say we keep the current name. Lets move forward with the
repackage and work toward exiting the incubator. If we get out
there, there is a lack of adoption and we can trace it back to poor
branding then we can change the name.
Tim
On Dec 30, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
I think we do need to put some concrete plan in place here, so I
think a vote is in order.
I support changing the name, if we come up with a name that we
like. Unfortunately, I don't like most of the ideas that haven't
already shown to be in conflict with some project out there. I did
like Apache Fortress, Stronghold, and Shield, but I think these
could be more problematic than JSecurity.
Given that, I'd prefer to leave the name as it is until we come up
with something that has more popular support. We do need to go
ahead and repackage everything, so this question is holding up a
lot of work. Let's make a decision!
Jeremy
On Dec 27, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
As this needs to be clearly resolved before we exit the Incubator,
I believe
that we have 2 questions that we need to vote on formally:
1. Will JSecurity be renamed?
2. If so, what will that new name be?
Should we start a vote for #1, and depending on its outcome, then
have a
vote for #2?
I surface #1 because I don't think we as a team reached a clear
consensus as
to whether or not we must do that. I'd like to just formalize
that intent
in a vote just to make it absolutely clear.
The only feedback we got from Legal about retaining the JSecurity
name was
from Henri Yandell:
"Given that it's a name you've been using for 4 years, and it's very
generic [jXxx being a common pattern in our space and Security being
very generic]; I'm inclined to keep the current name; though by the
same reasoning, it's a weak name as "Apache JSecurity" isn't very
good
branding."
indicating that Legal apparently doesn't perceive a naming
conflict (no one
else made any comments in over 2 weeks). If that is the case, it
appears
the decision is left to the project team, which seems like a vote
would be
in order.
Please note that I have no ulterior motive in kicking this thread
off - I've
become quite accustomed to one or two of the other proposed names
and have
no problems using them if the team decides that is the appropriate
course of
action. I'm just trying to resolve both of these two questions
definitively
before next month's board report, which is coming up very soon.
What should we do next?
- Les
