Hi Alex, > On Sep 13, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > I believe those who say that trying to sell Flex or FlexJS to a client is > difficult. > > I don't have hard data to back this, but I've always felt that there are > two kinds of Flex customers. One set builds their own applications and > thus can choose their own development technologies. Another set builds > applications for other people and have to complete against other > candidates wanting to build those same applications.
I think you are drawing an arbitrary line here. For success the project needs to be able to have a product that independent contractors and corporate developers can use and trust to be there for them while meeting inner source standards. I truly believe that there is only time for one more project reset. I’m inclined to think that if you want to stick with FlexJS then just create a new mailing list called flexjs-us...@flex.apache.org. Then build FlexJS until you reach the magical place of wanting to extend to a non-JS framework. Regards, Dave > > I believe the first set have Flex apps that need to migrate to something > else by 2020. I'm surprised there isn't more noise on our lists, but I > think I'm seeing an increase in interest on our lists. IMO, these are the > customers it will be easier for us to win over since they have an existing > code base in ActionScript and already buy into the fundamentals of Flex. > I think there will be enough of these customers to keep us busy polishing > the components. > > Gaining traction in the second set is harder. I am hopeful that success > and lessons learned serving the first set will get us to the point where > we are truly ready to compare our code against the other frameworks out > there. And we might need a different brand name. You don't have to wait, > you can try to promote our code in that arena now, but I am concerned that > we have too many rough edges right now. Our doc isn't up to date and > doesn't look great. And we need more doc. I'll be trying to get the doc > build working today, and we need to get this working better for both sets > of customers and more volunteers are welcome to help. > > But I think the only question we want answered before the board meeting is > whether the project name FlexJS is going to make it hard to build a brand > with a different name to considered against the other JS frameworks. I > think it won't. Carlos and Om, I feel like you haven't answered the > question about PROJECT name. I don't think there is anybody saying we > shouldn't build a different brand on a different PRODUCT name later. Do > you feel like the PROJECT name of FlexJS is going to be a hindrance, and > why? > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 9/13/17, 10:57 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" > <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 13, 2017 9:39 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> My main concern was with the JS suffix. If we can create new products >> without the JS suffix that’s fine with me. >> >> On the other hand, if Carlos or someone else feels passionate about a name >> change and volunteers to deal with the overhead I wouldn’t go against it. >> >> >> I agree with Carlos. Bringing in the word Flex-something into a >> conversation with peers is proving to be hard. >> >> If anything, a new name would bring a fresh perspective on this wonderful >> technology. >> >> I volunteer to help out with the branding as much as I can. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >> >> >> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:33 PM >> To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Name of the FlexJS Fork >> >> Actually, my question was whether the PROJECT name is more or less >> important than the PRODUCT name. Mostly, the board/infra doesn't want us >> to change the PROJECT name. Infra replied that we can create PRODUCTs >> with names that do not match the PROJECT name. >> >> So, could we live with the PROJECT being called FlexJS forever? If we >> think we can target a different group of customers with a different >> PRODUCT name we can discuss what that name is later. Now AIUI, if we do >> stick with FlexJS as the PROJECT, and later decide to create a PRODUCT >> called Foo, I think somewhere on web pages for Foo it will link back >> eventually to our source repositories and other pages that have the >> PROJECT name "FlexJS" on it and people might go "Huh, I didn't know that >> Foo was based on FlexJS". But will they run away? >> >> I buy lots of foods with brand names that I have no idea who the actual >> manufacturer is. In the US, a fancy brand of cookies (Pepperidge Farm) is >> manufactured by the same company that makes cheap condensed soup >> (Campbells). A popular salad dressing is made by a well-known bleach >> company (Clorox). So, I agree with Carlos that it might be worth building >> a whole new brand without the word Flex in it, but I think the only >> question we need to answer right now is whether the PROJECT name "FlexJS" >> will be a hindrance to building that brand. >> >> Thoughts? >> -Alex >> >> On 9/13/17, 4:07 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes. If we might change the name after forming the new PMC, it’s a >>> concern. Alex’s question is more about the framework developing into >>> something else in the future. That’s something I don’t think we need to >>> be concerned about right now. >>> >>> I’d rather capitalize on the FlexJS name. >>> >>> Harbs >>> >>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I thought that name things was one of the concerns in the thread from >>>> board. >>> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
