Glasgow naming: proposal

[Kim van der Riet]

I have been somewhat surprised at the amount of debate surrounding the
name of the proposed Glasgow project. It seems that this project has
become entangled in an issue overdue for discussion within Apache.
Perhaps the emotive issue of using (another) proper noun has sparked a
much-needed debate. I have even been a little confused by the seemingly
contradictory posts about resolving the naming of the project prior to
acceptance vs. solving the issue prior to graduation.

Being new to the process of incubation and to Apache itself, I would
very much appreciate some clarification of the following regarding
Glasgow: Do we need to change our name now or after acceptance? The
project undertakes to abide by any policy or naming decision and make
any necessary name changes. If need be, we could even open a separate
thread, pre- or post-incubation-acceptance, for the purpose of finding
an acceptable name, and invite all those who wish to do to to
contribute.

Some clear guidelines would be very helpful.

Kim van der Riet
Hopeful future (Glasgow) committer
RedHat



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

[Mike Kienenberger]

Kim,

I am not an Incubator PMC member, but past experience over the last
few months shows that the name is not a barrier to entry for the
Incubator.    For example, ADFFaces is an incubating project with a
name trademarked by Oracle, and part of the incubating process has to
been to change that name to Trinidad.    The name "Glasgow" may or may
not need to be changed before graduation, but it is not going to
prevent starting incubation.

There's certainly some strong opinions being presented here, but the
naming issues deal more with graduation issues than incubator
acceptance issues.


On 8/7/06, Kim van der Riet <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have been somewhat surprised at the amount of debate surrounding the
> name of the proposed Glasgow project. It seems that this project has
> become entangled in an issue overdue for discussion within Apache.
> Perhaps the emotive issue of using (another) proper noun has sparked a
> much-needed debate. I have even been a little confused by the seemingly
> contradictory posts about resolving the naming of the project prior to
> acceptance vs. solving the issue prior to graduation.
>
> Being new to the process of incubation and to Apache itself, I would
> very much appreciate some clarification of the following regarding
> Glasgow: Do we need to change our name now or after acceptance? The
> project undertakes to abide by any policy or naming decision and make
> any necessary name changes. If need be, we could even open a separate
> thread, pre- or post-incubation-acceptance, for the purpose of finding
> an acceptable name, and invite all those who wish to do to to
> contribute.
>
> Some clear guidelines would be very helpful.
>
> Kim van der Riet
> Hopeful future (Glasgow) committer
> RedHat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

[Matthias Wessendorf-4]

That's right!

adffaces "solved" the naming during the incubation (still ongoing;))

But... you should note that the code donation came from Oracle,
so no "naming issues" (on adf faces) on this side.

I am not really sure what happens when you call your incubation
project "vista" or "netweaver" for instance ... :-)

-Matthias

On 8/7/06, Mike Kienenberger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Kim,
>
> I am not an Incubator PMC member, but past experience over the last
> few months shows that the name is not a barrier to entry for the
> Incubator.    For example, ADFFaces is an incubating project with a
> name trademarked by Oracle, and part of the incubating process has to
> been to change that name to Trinidad.    The name "Glasgow" may or may
> not need to be changed before graduation, but it is not going to
> prevent starting incubation.
>
> There's certainly some strong opinions being presented here, but the
> naming issues deal more with graduation issues than incubator
> acceptance issues.
>
>
> On 8/7/06, Kim van der Riet <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I have been somewhat surprised at the amount of debate surrounding the
> > name of the proposed Glasgow project. It seems that this project has
> > become entangled in an issue overdue for discussion within Apache.
> > Perhaps the emotive issue of using (another) proper noun has sparked a
> > much-needed debate. I have even been a little confused by the seemingly
> > contradictory posts about resolving the naming of the project prior to
> > acceptance vs. solving the issue prior to graduation.
> >
> > Being new to the process of incubation and to Apache itself, I would
> > very much appreciate some clarification of the following regarding
> > Glasgow: Do we need to change our name now or after acceptance? The
> > project undertakes to abide by any policy or naming decision and make
> > any necessary name changes. If need be, we could even open a separate
> > thread, pre- or post-incubation-acceptance, for the purpose of finding
> > an acceptable name, and invite all those who wish to do to to
> > contribute.
> >
> > Some clear guidelines would be very helpful.
> >
> > Kim van der Riet
> > Hopeful future (Glasgow) committer
> > RedHat
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

[robert burrell donkin-2]

On 8/7/06, Kim van der Riet <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have been somewhat surprised at the amount of debate surrounding the
> name of the proposed Glasgow project. It seems that this project has
> become entangled in an issue overdue for discussion within Apache.
> Perhaps the emotive issue of using (another) proper noun has sparked a
> much-needed debate.

+1

> I have even been a little confused by the seemingly
> contradictory posts about resolving the naming of the project prior to
> acceptance vs. solving the issue prior to graduation.

IMHO there is no consensus about this issue and different people
disagree about the right approach. maybe a consensus will emerge.
maybe it will not.

> Being new to the process of incubation and to Apache itself, I would
> very much appreciate some clarification of the following regarding
> Glasgow: Do we need to change our name now or after acceptance?

IMHO there is not a consensus on this issue

it is possible that submitting a new proposal with a different name
may result in some of those who voted against the proposal on the
grounds of the name alone to change their minds. i can speak only for
myself, though.

> The project undertakes to abide by any policy or naming decision and make
> any necessary name changes. If need be, we could even open a separate
> thread, pre- or post-incubation-acceptance, for the purpose of finding
> an acceptable name, and invite all those who wish to do to to
> contribute.

that's probably the best way to go about finding a name

> Some clear guidelines would be very helpful.

it's hard to be clear when i can't see clearly myself

it's hard to give guidance when there is not a consensus. i can only
give my opinions

the only advice i can give is: keep doing what you're doing now: speak
out, engage in the debate :-)

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

[Craig L Russell]

On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Kim van der Riet wrote:

> I have been somewhat surprised at the amount of debate surrounding the
> name of the proposed Glasgow project.

Same here, and I've been on this alias for over a year. Most of the  
discussion earlier has been over infringement issues, not  
appropriateness issues.

> It seems that this project has
> become entangled in an issue overdue for discussion within Apache.
> Perhaps the emotive issue of using (another) proper noun has sparked a
> much-needed debate.

I agree.

> I have even been a little confused by the seemingly
> contradictory posts about resolving the naming of the project prior to
> acceptance vs. solving the issue prior to graduation.

I have noticed that there is a core set of principles that everyone  
agrees on, and once you go beyond those, opinions tend to diverge.

The good news is that there are no well-accepted principles for  
entering the incubator with a controversial name. So from me, the  
name is absolutely not an issue for entering.

Exiting the incubator requires much more consensus than entering, and  
I'd expect that during incubation that the naming issues should  
continue to be discussed and resolved. If someone feels strongly that  
proper names are inappropriate for Apache projects (in general) or  
some (specific) name is inappropriate then this will come out during  
the incubation period.
>
> Being new to the process of incubation and to Apache itself, I would
> very much appreciate some clarification of the following regarding
> Glasgow: Do we need to change our name now or after acceptance?

 From my perspective, let's start incubation and discuss the issue  
during incubation.

> The
> project undertakes to abide by any policy or naming decision and make
> any necessary name changes. If need be, we could even open a separate
> thread, pre- or post-incubation-acceptance, for the purpose of finding
> an acceptable name, and invite all those who wish to do to to
> contribute.

I'd feel comfortable discussing the naming issues on the incubator@  
alias. I'd feel less comfortable with a more restricted alias e.g.  
glasgow-dev@ because people with strong opinions might not even be  
subscribed.
>
> Some clear guidelines would be very helpful.

Guidelines are an evolving process. Based on what you've seen, naming  
is not a well-defined process aside from the obvious legal trademark  
issues.

Craig

>
> Kim van der Riet
> Hopeful future (Glasgow) committer
> RedHat
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!