hrmm, here's my 2 cents worth.
I think that we should stick with Wave In A Box as the product name. Remember, while we want this to be a complete package, it is also going to be the reference implementation that others are going to be looking at when building their own (so in this at least it will be continuing the task that FedOne was started with). Wave In A Box sums up very nicely what we're trying to achieve. We can start looking at fancier names if we decide to build a reference enterprise setup :) James On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM, David Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the server should be a famous surfing break like pipeline and the > clients could have board names like Malibu or thruster. > > > > David Ford [email protected] > 0410507420 > > > > On 18/09/2010, at 0:05, ThomasWrobel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the confusion is "wave" is used just too much. >> Its a protocol name, a product name, and a name for a thread within >> the protocol. >> One would be fine, but all 3 is just confusing. >> >> I do like the Wave In A Box name though, and (personally) I think >> Federation is a pretty darn cool goal for anything too. >> >> Maybe "Wave" should be kept purely for the federation name, and >> variants for the server name, but clients should be given completely >> unrelated names? >> >> On Sep 17, 2:13 pm, Anders <[email protected]> wrote: >>> +1 The brand name Wave can include all wave service providers, be used >>> consistently in news articles etc and is easy for end users to >>> remember. >>> >>> On Sep 17, 1:54 pm, Graham Simpson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Even simpler, people don't really think of Wave in a box as a name >>>> either, Let's just call it Wave! If that's what it is, and if Google >>>> is shutting down Google Wave and thus avoiding a branding clash - Wave >>>> will do fine as the name of the server. >>> >>>> On Sep 17, 7:57 am, Dave butlerdi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> +1 >>> >>>>> On 17 September 2010 08:41, Joseph Gentle <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I hate the proliferation of meaningless names. Its like unnecessary >>>>>> product complexity - it makes users think and learn unnecessarily. >>> >>>>>> We have used up our quota of stupid names already anyway - "wave", >>>>>> "splash", "fedone", "wavelet", "gadget", "fedone"... >>> >>>>>> You may see 'wave in a box' as a milestone, but I think everybody else > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Wave Protocol" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
