The inevitable result of these two factors is an interminable discussion on the naming of a project.
IMHO, the right answer is *not* to buck this up to the incubator PMC, or to members, or *gasp* to the board. A much better approach would be:
1) Have the incubator PMC identify a clear set of constraints that apply to *all* names. Vote on them, document them, and move on.
Which should also be the minimum requirements for all names whether in the Incubator or without.
2) Identify the PPMC who gets to name this project - and hold them accountable for their decision.
+1. I think the Incubator PMC is in a kind of unique position. We are trying to ensure that new projects/new committers in new projects are working in "The Apache Way". So for me, the Incubator PMC shouldn't actually be voting to make the decision for the incubating project. It should simply be checking that the decision has been made appropriately. If anyone in the PMC vetoes a PPMC decision it should be on the basis that the decision does not meet the ASF requirements, not on the basis that we do/don't like a name (for example).
Anything else takes the decision away from the project in inubation, and I'm not sure I see how that is fostering the Apache way.
Cheers,
Berin--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
