Also, the fundamental battle here is between an "abstract" name and a "descriptive" name. Grant and I had this very same discussion at the outset of LCF back last December - he and other PMC members apparently felt strongly that descriptive names were much better. If we do change names yet again, should we opt for an abstract name, or a descriptive one?
Karl On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied > something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it > was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or > nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make > sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first? > > Karl > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer < > simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hey folks, >> >> I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache >> Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@. >> Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors >> Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible >> confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some >> suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion >> on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't >> apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss >> further. >> Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I >> personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name. >> Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and >> they are less ambiguous. >> >> Any suggestions, thoughts? >> >> simon >> > >
