Unless there are objections, I propose we continue the vote for the project name and we can have a separate discussion once the new project is formed on what to name the product.
I don’t think we should rush into the decision on the product, but the project name is more time critical and has less marketing impact. Does that sound like a plan? Harbs > On Sep 15, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Guys, > > Reading Justin's thoughts we should really consider all of that. We can > loose a lot of already gathered attention even if Carlos will put effort > for new brand. > > +1 for having Product Name as FlexJS. That would be the bridge which can > hold us. > > Piotr > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 23:31 Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > >> If the project name were to be "Apache Royale" and produced FlexJS, and >> the Apache Royale web page/wiki referenced FlexJS and made it available >> for Google searches, then anyone who was interested in or heard about >> FlexJS and searched for "FlexJS" (or "Flex" or "Adobe Flex" or "Apache >> Flex" or "ActionScript Flex" or <etc>), they should get a link to Apache >> Royale in their search results. The blurb that accompanies the search >> result should mention FlexJS. I think that would be enough to pique >> interest and get a click. >> >> Substitute "Royale" for whatever name you'd like the project to be called. >> >> ‹peter >> >> On 9/14/17, 5:16 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It¹s great to have another perspective on this. >>> >>> Some of these issues can be addressed by SEO. >>> >>> It could be that we should be careful about changing names, and / or >>> timing of changing names. >>> >>> Alex does make a good point that the project name does not need to be the >>> same as the product name. It might make sense to keep the product as >>> FlexJS for now at least and just pick a different project name. The >>> product name is easier to change than the project name and a project can >>> have more than one product. >>> >>> If I would pick a reference to a product which did a major rebranding to >>> drop associations to old technology it would be Xojo. I¹m not sure how >>> many here are familiar with it, but it used to be call REALBasic. A few >>> years back they rebranded as Xojo. I don¹t think it made much of a >>> difference to the folks using it. I have no idea if it helped them or not. >>> >>> Harbs >>> >>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:07 PM, Justin M. Hill <jus...@prominic.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I am not someone with an official vote, but I wanted to express my >>>> concern >>>> about ditching the FlexJS name. >>>> >>>> The largest possible market for adoption of a new "javascript" solution >>>> is >>>> to go after those who have stuck with Flex. There are FAR too many >>>> javascript solutions on the market right now. >>>> >>>> If the vote is to change the name, this will: >>>> >>>> -- confuse the people who have been patiently waiting for FlexJS to get >>>> to >>>> 1.0 so they can dive in. >>>> >>>> -- get lost in the noise of all of the other far more well popularized >>>> javascript frameworks like Angular, React, etc. >>>> >>>> -- lose the feeling, however small it may be, that those who came from >>>> the >>>> Flex background can expect to have some of their knowledge recycled. >>>> >>>> >>>> These are 3 critical aspects in terms of raising awareness and having a >>>> potentially devoted following of one technology (Flex) star to >>>> transition >>>> and champion to a new one (FlexJS). >>>> >>>> If we lose that, then we effectively have to target against ALL >>>> javascript >>>> frameworks, most notably ones that are heavily entrenched already and >>>> supported by giant company resources like Google and Facebook. >>>> >>>> >>>> I am strongly opposed to a name change. I think this would be a huge >>>> mistake. >>>> >>>> On top of that, picking a new name and gaining awareness of it is HARD. >>>> >>>> It should be reason enough for the Apache powers-that-be to approve a >>>> project change to avoid being stuck with a huge legacy Flex bugbase that >>>> Adobe donated, and instead start fresh with our 1.0 name. >>>> >>>> If that cannot be achieved, then at a bare minimum we should seek to >>>> keep >>>> the name FlexJS. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding targeting something other than Javascript -- like SWF or AIR >>>> -- I >>>> realize the debug aspect benefits are important, but all this is going >>>> to >>>> do is confuse people. >>>> >>>> I have read about HaXe a dozen times, and I never understand what it >>>> does >>>> because apparently it does too much. A swiss army knife is a lot more >>>> confusing to use then a fixed head screwdriver. >>>> >>>> Please, we have spent SO much time trying to get to 1.0 -- lets get >>>> FOCUSED >>>> on delivering what everyone outside of the community of active >>>> participants >>>> here has been waiting on, which is a future direction for their Flex >>>> efforts. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Justin Hill >>>> >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2FProminic >> . >>>> NET&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce3d4e33b77f840be8d2b08d4fbb5d605%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387 >>>> 94aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636410205784877857&sdata=cw5LAiH6bOvULqdsdx4NL >>>> GWNUawI58dy%2F4fqTI5aCaM%3D&reserved=0 | Skype: JustinProminic >>>> >>>> My Apache Flex community contribution is working on the open >>>> source Moonshine-IDE.com for FlexJS. >>> >> >>
