For me it is definitly start like a plan. It would be good in the vote mention that we may stay with FlexJS name as an Product - To be discussed - even voted.
Thoughts? Piotr On Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 00:36 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >>> > >> > >> > >
