Re: JSecurity name change - pre vote

[Tim Veil]

My reading of Les' email and the feedback from legal led me to believe that a name change was not required, at least not on a legal basis. The comment from legal suggested the only drawback to JSecurity was that it wasn't "very good branding". At this juncture, I think this is a very weak reason to change a name. The only reason to change the name now would be because a) we will be legally forced to change it eventually (dubious) or b) another, more viable name has greater cachet (maybe). From my reading of the dozens and dozens of emails related to this topic I haven't heard any convincing argument for a or b.

Tim




On Jan 1, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

I'm sure I'm not alone here when I say that the name of a project means very, very little when making a technology selection. There are some truly awful project names out there that I use everyday because they get the job done. If we turn this project into what we think and know it can be, our users won't care what its called. Much like the logging facade discussion, I wish we could move beyond this issue. Just my opinion. Happy new year and go tigers ;)

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.

Jeremy


On Dec 27, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

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!

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?


vote for #2?


in a vote just to make it absolutely clear.


from Henri Yandell:


very generic]; I'm inclined to keep the current name; though by the

branding."


in order.


before next month's board report, which is coming up very soon.

What should we do next?

- Les

Should we start a vote for #1, and depending on its outcome, then have a 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 The only feedback we got from Legal about retaining the JSecurity name was "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 same reasoning, it's a weak name as "Apache JSecurity" isn't very good 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 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

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature