Ken wrote: > I hope it doesn't look like I'm just a contrarian > to everything, I'm not intentionally targetting > you, I very much appreciate the help you've given > me in the past ...
I'm starting to feel like a contrarian, going against the flow myself. I don't take it personally. > Personally I think it sounds just fine for the > foundation to use the MapServer name, for > MapServer to use the MapServer, and other products > within the foundation to use their own names. I disagree. What is the incentive for other major projects to come under the MapServer umbrella if they don't get some stake (or at least an equal amount of stake) in the name? It ends up giving an undue amount of credit to MapServer. It sounds fine because you have your head in MapServer space. Put on your Mapguide hat, how does "Mapguide, by the MapServer foundation" sound to you? If it were my project, I'd rather go create the "Mapguide foundation" or even the "MapTools Foundation", then at least my product won't play second fiddle to another who gets the headlines all the time. > It lends some history to things and doesn't > contradict the arguement > against giving every product MapServer somewhere > in its name. Exactly, "it lends some history" but all that history points back to MapServer. If the MapServer name cannot be somewhat redefined, expanded and shared, then we can't use it for the name of foundation, it doesn't make sense. Having a "MapServer" project in the "MapServer Foundation" makes it very clear to other projects that the primary purpose for the foundation is the MapServer project and that other projects are of secondary importance. > Anyways, I'll reign in my crazed ramblings I can't promise to do the same ;) Merry Christmas, Tyler
