Sam Ruby wrote: ...
1) Have the incubator PMC identify a clear set of constraints that apply to *all* names. Vote on them, document them, and move on.
Right. What is our policy?
ATM here is our rule:
"
Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure that the name is not already trademarked for an existing software product.
"
A search there shows up this that is mildly related to us: "Advertising and Business" -> seems ok
This said, it's evident to me that this is not enough.
Why? It seems OK to me.
The only fact that we are discussing such a trivial issue so much is a *strong* indication that the name must change, or that at least the PPMC must decide on this in full autonomy.
Either that, or it is a classic bikeshed:
http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml
Then we have to prevent such discussions in the future by setting clearer rules. Ideas?
Possible addition:
"The name should not be a name of a person, geographical entity, of religious nature or generally insulting. Since the definition of 'insulting' can vary from place to place, please post the name on the lists for some time so that others can say if it has problems in some ciltures."
By these guidelines, Jakarta should be renamed.
2) Identify the PPMC who gets to name this project - and hold them accountable for their decision.
We are not deciding on the name but on the need or not to have a name change. In case for a name change, this will surely be the case.
At which point, they will be autonomous until the Incubator PMC decides that the new name offends somebody.
I would very much prefer that this be turned around. Instead of the incubator PMC voting on and taking responsibility for rejecting the name Geronimo, establish a PPMC and have the concerned individuals make their case to the people who are empowered to make that decision.
I very much like the government model that the ASF board operates on. It does not meddle in PMC decisions. If the board does not like the way some project is operating - it typically has only one rather blunt instrument to use: disband the PMC. This has the nice side benefit as it encourages the use of diplomacy over force as typically the only way a vote to disband a PMC would pass is if it presented a clear and present danger to the ASF.
- Sam Ruby
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
