+1 from me, too.
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, 05:32 Andi Huber, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Dan!
>
> My vote: +1
> (change the framework's name to "Causeway")
>
> Cheers Andi
>
> On 2022/07/15 15:50:10 Dan Haywood wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > First, let me update everyone on where we've got to on the initiative to
> > rename the framework:
> >
> > * on 24th May we kicked off a vote [1] on the principle of changing the
> > name of the framework, with 3 candidate names
> > * on 13th June I closed that vote [2] with "Alma" and "Causeway" both
> > receiving very similar numbers of votes ("Causeway" slightly edging it
> > after the dust had settled)
> > * at the same time I invited folks to perform the product name search for
> > both, and to provide logo ideas for both [3].
> >
> > Since then (over the last 4 weeks) we've had a good number of logo ideas
> > for "Causeway". As it is my particular favorite, I took the time to
> > perform a product name search [3]; I didn't see any issues.
> >
> > For "Alma", we have had a limited number of logo suggestions, and no-one
> > has completed the product name search.
> >
> > Given that more enthusiasm has been shown for moving to "Causeway", I
> > suggest this is the way to go.
> >
> > ~~~~~~
> >
> > We now need to run another vote to obtain a mandate for this. Only
> > committers/PMC members need vote this time.
> >
> > [+1] change the framework's name to "Causeway"
> > [+0] yes we should change the name, but I don't want to lend my vote
> to
> > this particular name
> > [-0] no, I don't think we should change the name, but I don't want to
> > block this change
> > [-1] no, don't change the framework's name at all, or at least not to
> > this name.
> >
> > If you're a PMC member and strongly feel that the name should change
> > instead to "Alma", then you should probably vote -1. However, I would
> ask
> > that you complete the product name search similar to [3] if that's the
> > case. Please don't vote against without completing the name
> > search, otherwise we end up not being able to move forward with either
> > option.
> >
> > In theory only 72 hours is required for this vote, but as it's so
> > important, I again intend to keep the vote alive, I suggest for a week.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Dan
> >
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/k5bfzho5tpql2cpk16popp9d6x8rghod
> > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/srpdmolwb99qwj0fboks0yodqgp50zov
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-201
> >
>
