IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done privately and the result was announced here.
I can imagine how frustrating this must be to folks who are new to Apache, but folks here don't like private stuff. If you come here you must be willing to open your kimono all the way, not just let us take a peek thru a small crack. An example was the Ajax proposal .. the name got rejected and we had a public debate here and created Kabuki (which of course proceeded to have a failure to launch but that's another movie). In any case, if there are naming issues we can certainly deal with them during incubation and simply make it a graduation criteria to come up with a better name. I can see why marketing types will get upset by that but again educating the marketing community to deal with the Apache Way is a requirement to survive here too :-). The PRC folks will take the sledge hammer on that one! We're *such* a whacky bunch. Sanjiva. On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 00:41 +0200, Martin van den Bemt wrote: > Also if I recall correctly, naming issues can also be solved while in the > incbuator... (like > adffaces has) > > Mvgr, > Martin > > Danny Angus wrote: > > Archit, > > > > I'm very happy to here you say so, I certainly don't want to affect > > your progress through the incubator, in many ways I've unfairly sigled > > you out as an example of a prectice I feel strongly about. > > > > Unfortunately I will be away, offline, for the next four days, but if > > it is still relevant I will be happy to take up your kind offer and > > put in time helping to find an acceptable, strike that, a good name. > > > > d. > > > > On 04/08/06, Archit Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The project formerly known as Blaze changed its name to Glasgow based on > >> previous feedback and decided to follow Apache precedent (e.g. Tuscany). > >> Apparently there are strong objections to this precendent. In our > >> discussions, the group did come up with some ingenious names for the > >> project, but most had legal concerns or conflicted with existing > >> software. Glasgow was the winner mostly by process of elimination. > >> > >> Danny, I'm confident that none of the committers are particularly > >> attached to the name and no one wants to see the proposal sidetracked > >> over the name of the project. So, we welcome any help in selecting a > >> name that does not have any software trademarks in the USPTO and isn't > >> connected to other relevant software projects. > >> > >> -- Archit > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
