[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-1303) Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose

["Dan Haywood (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16045866#comment-16045866 ] 

Dan Haywood commented on ISIS-1303:
-----------------------------------

At IsisCon 2017, held in Amsterdam in June, we had some great discussions about who to pitch the framework to (as well as possible inhibitors).  We agreed, I think, that the pitch is to IT Managers/CTOs, who understand the needs of the business, and either know enough about technology to make the call or (probably more likely) would rely on a trusted "technical" leiutenant to help make the call about whether to explore our framework.  But we don't pitch to the techies directly.  (There is a separate discussion about what to do to ensure that those technical leiutenants don't "veto" our framework for unimportant reasons... won't address here).

Anyway, with respect to a pitch to a business aware IT Manager/CTO, we only want to talk to those who *"want to allow the business change"*, who see that *requires a feedback loop* (because one can't know a priori that every change is a good change), would understand our philosophy that *IT is not a cost centre but is a profit centre*, that IT systems should be sized as the *minimum needed to run your business* (software is expensive to own, so have as little as possible of it).  If those ideas fall flat, then better to fail fast on that prospect and find someone else to talk to.

But for those for whom the above ideas do resonate, then we have a target audience and can start the conversation.

In general there seemed to be an appetite to change the name of the framework; apart from its (current) negative connotations, the name "Isis" doesn't actually mean very much, so not having an apposite name (and corresponding strapline) is a missed opportunity in terms of introducing the framework

On that note, here were some additional names that came out:

* _Apache Shortcut_ : rapid development.  Possible negative connotations though? (hacky, bodge)

* _Apache Loop_ : as in feedback loops.

* _Apache Alma_ : "Alma" is Spanish for soul, it's also the rod in the middle of a string instrument that connects the bridge to the body, so that the instrument resonates.   Nice and alliterative.  *"The soul of your business"*

* _Apache Kokoro_: picking up on the soul idea, "Kokoro" is Japanese that combines the (in the Western culture) concepts of soul and heart and mind.  So again, the "soul of your business".

* _Apache Soul_: same idea, also Soul Jazz.

* _Apache Affknaai_ - tongue in cheek suggestion, given our history of "unfortunate names" ... a framework formerly known as apache isis

The top candidates, with possible straplines, we ended up with are:

* *Apache Kikoro*: _"the soul of your business"_
* *Apache Alma*: _"the soul of your business"_
* *Apache Rubato*: _"play your own tune"_
* *Apache Rubato*: _"play freely"_
* *Apache Tailor*: _"fit for business"_

FWIW I've listed these in my own preference order



> Rename the project to better describe its values and purpose
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ISIS-1303
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1303
>             Project: Isis
>          Issue Type: Wish
>    Affects Versions: 1.11.1
>            Reporter: Dan Haywood
>             Fix For: 1.20.0
>
>         Attachments: ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheFarthing.jpg, ApacheGestalt.jpg, Offset-curves-of-sinus-curve.svg
>
>
> In the past there have been a couple of discussions regarding renaming the project, the reason generally cited being the potential embarrassment of sharing a name with the jihadist militant group [1] currently prominent in the headlines.  After due discussion on the mailing lists the prevailing view has been to retain our name: "we were here first".  
> Until now I've concurred with that view also... after all, I originally came up with the name "Isis", originally based on the name of the Thames as it flows through Oxford [2] (many of the original authors of the framework live within Oxfordshire, UK).
> Separately to that discussion, we have the issue of marketing.  Originally we marketed ourselves as a framework implementing the "naked objects" pattern [3]; the original name of the framework (prior to Apache) was of course the Naked Objects Framework.  However, this pattern is either not well-known or is misunderstood (only a low proportion of developers that encounter the idea immediately "get it").  The crudity of the original user interfaces didn't help.  And the name also, of course, can cause embarrassment in some cultures.
> Then, when domain-driven design [4] came along as a movement, that seemed an obvious platform upon which to position the framework: we obviously share the core belief that the domain is the most important bit of the system.  However - and I still find this surprising - despite attempts otherwise we haven't really made too much of an impression in that community.  The fact that the DDD community got massively sidetracked for a while by the CQRS pattern is perhaps part of it.   I also often detect the view that DDD should imply not using a framework.  The irony of course is that in rejecting framework such developers actually have to write more infrastructure code vs business domain code.
> Also, the fit is perhaps not all that good after all.  In the DDD community I don't see anyone talking about modules... one of the named patterns, and a major focus of our framework, but missing from DDD talks.  Instead they get side-tracked talking only about aggregate roots or bounded contexts; all well and good, but over-emphasised).
> [Aside: Indeed, I raised the topic of modules with Eric Evans himself (in person), and he agreed there was little emphasis.  When I described our framework's use of domain events to hook modules together (along with vetoing behaviour we support) he admitted it was a new approach/pattern to him...]
> Anyway, so DDD - which looked so promising - hasn't delivered.  They might come around to us one day, but it's probably time to define our own individual space.  Also, in the same way that everyone takes agile development for granted as the "de facto", we ought to simply take DDD for granted too... "of course you will be doing DDD, but are you doing it well?"
> What we need to better market the framework is some other pattern or concept or hook, and become known as the framework that best supports that idea.  There are several candidates:
> - hexagonal architecture (also called ports and adapters, or the onion architecture, and related to the clean architecture)
> - don't repeat yourself principle
> - aspect oriented programming (naked objects pattern is really the recognition that UI presentation is a cross-cutting concern)
> - the general concept of modularity
> - DCI (data/context/interactions).
> - "clean" "pure" "essential" pojo programming model
> - agile, lean
> - breaking down barriers between IT and business
> Of these, I think that hexagonal architecture looks the best fit; it is well regarded as a concept among the "cognoscenti", but there are surprisingly no open source frameworks out there (at least in the Java space) that position themselves as being the natural choice.
> Therefore, I think a name - and appropriate short tag line - based around this idea of hexagonal architecture should be considered.
> Candidate names:
> - hex  (might hit trademark issues)
> - hexagon
> - hexagn  (deliberately mis-spelled)
> - hxg  (omitting vowels, but could stand for hexagonal, extensible, generic)
> - hx (too short?)
> some made up words
> - hexag (partial word)
> - hexadom (sounds like a dinosaur?)
> - mhodex (an anagram of hex and mod)
> A common usage of hexagons is in bee hives, so:
> - honeycomb (the outer hexagon is the BC, the inner hexagons are modules)
> - comb (abbreviating it)
> picking up on the DRY principle, we have deserts (might have trademark issues):
> - sahara
> - kalahari
> - gobi
> Or, we could go a different way altogether.  Some random ideas:
> - meld (mind-meld, joining together)
> - sweetheart (because we love it)
> - neuron (too bland?)
> - razor (trademark issues?)
> - razr (trademark issues?)
> Any new name must pass the ASF naming procedures, documented in [5].  Of these, the most significant is not conflicting with any existing US trademarks.  However, it's also work checking out what google says for any potential name.  For example, if googling for "Apache Hex" (which I quite like), the first entry is for "Apache Hex Nipple".
> In terms of tag lines, our current is "Domain Driven Applications, Quickly".  Instead of that, ideas we've been brainstorming off-line are:
> - "own your code"  (custom software is a profit centre, not a cost centre)
> - "be responsible, own your code"  (more imperative, assertive)
> - "stay dry" or "keep dry" (alluding to the DRY principle)
> - "simple, but no simpler"
> - "don't be square" (a great joke on hexagons)
> We also had other some joke straplines; these are *not* to be taken seriously but I can't resist including them here:
> - "not for hipsters" (we've noticed how we appeal to those developers who've been around the block; we include ourselves in that descriptoin)
> - "please shave" (hipster joke)
> - "shave before use" (hipster joke)
> - "come back when you're ready"
> - "one day you'll see
> - "monkey see, monkey do" (my favorite expression)
> OK, that's it.  Please comment on this ticket, and add your own ideas.  If you have name suggestions, also use [5] to check if they are likely to pass US trademarks.
> Thx
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Isis
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design
> [5] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/naming



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)