Richard S. Hall wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
If that's the case, then a name change as Alex suggested may be in
order. It will avoid this type of confusion.
But, from my perspective, it will just create another source of
confusion, which is for the user community of Oscar and OSGi
frameworks in general. I am more concerned with the users than the
politics. In the end, I think it serves people less to have a new
project with unclear history and a dead project called Oscar, than to
just have a single project called Oscar.
Regardless, we can change the name if that is the consensus.
I'm fine with the name. I just don't want to deal with the politics.
If the amount of enery required to keep the name is overwhelming for
this community then I understand changing the name. I think Richard is
right about maintaining continuity. The Oscar name is the best way to
go. Let's just leave it at that.
Alex
