On Aug 18, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > >> identifying the project with the ASF. Similarly on many occasions we have >> asked projects to pick a new name as part of the incubation process. We have >> made exceptions for well established brands (ServiceMix & ActiveMQ were the >> first I remember but there probably were others) and so we do have precedent >> for that (and I *totally* agree changing the name would accomplish nothing >> here). IIRC even ServiceMix and ActiveMQ changed their package names to >> org.apache.*. > > It seems somewhere that we disconnected from some conceptual > terminology into an area of product/package naming. >
This seems really simple to me. If I move from Korea to the United States I'd better start learning to speak English if I want to interact with the population at large. If I just want to stay within my little Korean community then I can continue to speak my native language all that I want. Even an American living in the south needs to learn "proper" English if they want to run for a national office and be effective. That said, American English is constantly evolving. If the ASF as a whole wants to adopt terms like "Full Committer" and "Partial Committer" than I'd expect to see a definition somewhere. As it stands, I must have missed the email where they were defined. Without that context I'm left to assume a "Partial Committer" is somehow handicapped or missing a few body parts, or a "Full Committer" is someone like me with a little too much weight on their torso. The "cost" here is that a decently large project integrated with a larger organization and in doing so simply needs to be able to communicate effectively. That means a) getting the organization to recognize and accept the different terminology being used or b) stop using that terminology when speaking to the larger audience. Option a isn't accomplished by simply using the terminology and expecting everyone else to conform. Ralph
