I think we should vote directly. Perhaps we can save time by supplying our
top three choices, in order.
Karl
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Jack Krupansky <
jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> I think the first order of business should be to decide whether the name is
> going to be descriptive or abstract. Exactly what that abstract name or
> descriptive name is should be the second order of business, I think. Some
> might disagree, but I don't think the first decision should be predicated on
> the exact list of name choices for the second decision.
>
> Should there be a vote on whether to vote for abstract vs. descriptive or
> just proceed to vote directly?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gsing...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:50 PM
> To: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>
> Subject: Re: About name change
>
> So, there were some other suggestions on the Incubator list. What do
>> people think of the Open Connector Framework? OCF? (Granted, it is silly
>> to me given it will be the Apache Open Conn. Framework, which still implies
>> it is the Apache one.)
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>>
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can
>>> certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses.
>>>
>>> I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as
>>> being the ultimate end-all "connector framework" for Apache land ("land
>>> grab"). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other
>>> projects that seek to offer "connector frameworks" in Apache land. There
>>> really should be a "handle" to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the
>>> name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not
>>> acknowledge that in the future there could be other "connector frameworks."
>>>
>>> Note: We effectively have a "handle" name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a
>>> distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name.
>>> That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have
>>> descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer,
>>> Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also "HTTP Server" as well, but
>>> that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe
>>> the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and
>>> trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow.
>>>
>>> In short, even if "Connectors Framework" remains the tail end of the
>>> name, a "handle" prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL
>>> Apache projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is
>>> "Connecto", the full name could be "Connecto Connectors Framework", and the
>>> official project name would be "Apache Connecto Connectors Framework." That
>>> said, I am not a fan of trying to put the project description into the name
>>> in raw English form. So, my preference there would be to drop "Connectors
>>> Framework" from the name and stick with "Connecto", or whatever other
>>> "handle" is chosen.
>>>
>>> As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that
>>> there is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming
>>> conventions.
>>>
>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Simon Willnauer" <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM
>>> To: "Grant Ingersoll" <gsing...@apache.org>
>>> Cc: <connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: About name change
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it?
>>>>>
>>>> Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already
>>>> biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache
>>>> Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss
>>>> here!
>>>>
>>>> simon
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>>>> http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>>
>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>>
>>
