You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by ka...@nokia.com on 2010/08/16 15:59:23 UTC
Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Hi,
The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our project from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and to cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing something like this?
Karl
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
The relevance of this name might seem clear to project members, but not to me. From my background I would assume this is an implementation of the j2ca connector framework at apache, kind of like (the active part of) codehaus tranql. If I'd been working on tomcat or jetty recently I'd assume it was some kind of generalization of the transport connectors for a web container. Since this now or formerly relates to lucene I kinda doubt either one of these assumptions would be particularly accurate.
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:59 AM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our project from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and to cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing something like this?
>
> Karl
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 06:41 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:50 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >> So, how does this get resolved? Shall I call a formal vote for the
> >> IPMC? I rather like the name, but (somewhat) understand the
> >> objections. That being said, I'm not all that clever at naming, so...
> >
> > You rather like which name??
>
> ACF
>
> >
> > My take:
> >
> > 1. come up with a name.
> > 2. check for exixting uses of that name
> > 3. if it passes #2 then get support of your PPMC
> > 4. Propose it to IPMC.
> > 5. Vote on the IPMC about the name.
> >
> > If you want, you can add #4a: discuss with IPMC whether a vote is really
> > required for this, in which case you might be able to skip #5, but that
> > process would probably be slower in the end!
>
> Well, I would argue we did all that, with the exception of a formal IPMC vote (although we did ask here). It seemed to pass muster until a week later, a fair amount of time after we went and made the changes.
Sure. I recognise I'm coming in late with my concerns. I personally
don't like it as a name, as it is a descriptive style name that could be
misleading, but at this point I'm not going to stand in its way.
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:09 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:50 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>> So, how does this get resolved? Shall I call a formal vote for the
>>>> IPMC? I rather like the name, but (somewhat) understand the
>>>> objections. That being said, I'm not all that clever at naming, so...
>>>
>>> You rather like which name??
>>
>> ACF
>>
>>>
>>> My take:
>>>
>>> 1. come up with a name.
>>> 2. check for exixting uses of that name
>>> 3. if it passes #2 then get support of your PPMC
>>> 4. Propose it to IPMC.
>>> 5. Vote on the IPMC about the name.
>>>
>>> If you want, you can add #4a: discuss with IPMC whether a vote is really
>>> required for this, in which case you might be able to skip #5, but that
>>> process would probably be slower in the end!
>>
>> Well, I would argue we did all that, with the exception of a formal IPMC vote (although we did ask here). It seemed to pass muster until a week later, a fair amount of time after we went and made the changes.
>>
>
> I responded within 5 hours of the proposal. AFAICT the PPMC members have not responded to that post at all.
Agreed, you did indeed respond. We had the discussion on the Connectors mailing list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:50 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>> So, how does this get resolved? Shall I call a formal vote for the
>>> IPMC? I rather like the name, but (somewhat) understand the
>>> objections. That being said, I'm not all that clever at naming, so...
>>
>> You rather like which name??
>
> ACF
>
>>
>> My take:
>>
>> 1. come up with a name.
>> 2. check for exixting uses of that name
>> 3. if it passes #2 then get support of your PPMC
>> 4. Propose it to IPMC.
>> 5. Vote on the IPMC about the name.
>>
>> If you want, you can add #4a: discuss with IPMC whether a vote is really
>> required for this, in which case you might be able to skip #5, but that
>> process would probably be slower in the end!
>
> Well, I would argue we did all that, with the exception of a formal IPMC vote (although we did ask here). It seemed to pass muster until a week later, a fair amount of time after we went and made the changes.
>
I responded within 5 hours of the proposal. AFAICT the PPMC members have not responded to that post at all.
thanks
david jencks
>
>>
>> Upayavira
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:49 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>>> Sure would have been nice if these objections (other than David's) would have been brought up last week before we went and changed everything (after waiting several days for feedback) b/c we were working under the assumption that no one thought it was a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> At any rate, we'll go discuss.
>>>>
>>>> I apologise for that. Unfortunately it was (for me) one of those
>>>> situations when it takes a resonable volume of mail before it attracts
>>>> my attention enough to read what is being said.
>>>>
>>>> Upayavira
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:50 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> So, how does this get resolved? Shall I call a formal vote for the
>> IPMC? I rather like the name, but (somewhat) understand the
>> objections. That being said, I'm not all that clever at naming, so...
>
> You rather like which name??
ACF
>
> My take:
>
> 1. come up with a name.
> 2. check for exixting uses of that name
> 3. if it passes #2 then get support of your PPMC
> 4. Propose it to IPMC.
> 5. Vote on the IPMC about the name.
>
> If you want, you can add #4a: discuss with IPMC whether a vote is really
> required for this, in which case you might be able to skip #5, but that
> process would probably be slower in the end!
Well, I would argue we did all that, with the exception of a formal IPMC vote (although we did ask here). It seemed to pass muster until a week later, a fair amount of time after we went and made the changes.
>
> Upayavira
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:49 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>> Sure would have been nice if these objections (other than David's) would have been brought up last week before we went and changed everything (after waiting several days for feedback) b/c we were working under the assumption that no one thought it was a problem.
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, we'll go discuss.
>>>
>>> I apologise for that. Unfortunately it was (for me) one of those
>>> situations when it takes a resonable volume of mail before it attracts
>>> my attention enough to read what is being said.
>>>
>>> Upayavira
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:50 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> So, how does this get resolved? Shall I call a formal vote for the
> IPMC? I rather like the name, but (somewhat) understand the
> objections. That being said, I'm not all that clever at naming, so...
You rather like which name??
My take:
1. come up with a name.
2. check for exixting uses of that name
3. if it passes #2 then get support of your PPMC
4. Propose it to IPMC.
5. Vote on the IPMC about the name.
If you want, you can add #4a: discuss with IPMC whether a vote is really
required for this, in which case you might be able to skip #5, but that
process would probably be slower in the end!
Upayavira
> On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:49 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >> Sure would have been nice if these objections (other than David's) would have been brought up last week before we went and changed everything (after waiting several days for feedback) b/c we were working under the assumption that no one thought it was a problem.
> >>
> >> At any rate, we'll go discuss.
> >
> > I apologise for that. Unfortunately it was (for me) one of those
> > situations when it takes a resonable volume of mail before it attracts
> > my attention enough to read what is being said.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
So, how does this get resolved? Shall I call a formal vote for the IPMC? I rather like the name, but (somewhat) understand the objections. That being said, I'm not all that clever at naming, so...
On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:49 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Sure would have been nice if these objections (other than David's) would have been brought up last week before we went and changed everything (after waiting several days for feedback) b/c we were working under the assumption that no one thought it was a problem.
>>
>> At any rate, we'll go discuss.
>
> I apologise for that. Unfortunately it was (for me) one of those
> situations when it takes a resonable volume of mail before it attracts
> my attention enough to read what is being said.
>
> Upayavira
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:49 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Sure would have been nice if these objections (other than David's) would have been brought up last week before we went and changed everything (after waiting several days for feedback) b/c we were working under the assumption that no one thought it was a problem.
>
> At any rate, we'll go discuss.
I apologise for that. Unfortunately it was (for me) one of those
situations when it takes a resonable volume of mail before it attracts
my attention enough to read what is being said.
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
Sure would have been nice if these objections (other than David's) would have been brought up last week before we went and changed everything (after waiting several days for feedback) b/c we were working under the assumption that no one thought it was a problem.
At any rate, we'll go discuss.
On Aug 25, 2010, at 4:32 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 24/08/2010 22:55, Upayavira wrote:
>
>> But people aren't going to be thinking about governing TLPs when making
>> assumptions about a name.
>>
>> Does this project actually relate to Lucene or not? Apache Connectors
>> Framework tells me it is either a generic connectors framework for
>> connecting anything to anything, or it is for connecting httpd to
>> something else, neither of which I suspect are what it is all about.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> If the name is going to change (which sounds like a good idea) I'd
>> suggest going for something more abstract, to which you can give
>> meaning: Apache Connecto, or some such.
>
> +1 from me too.
>
>
> p
>
>> Upayavira
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> <0x62590808.asc>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
> On 24/08/2010 22:55, Upayavira wrote:
>
>> But people aren't going to be thinking about governing TLPs when making
>> assumptions about a name.
>>
>> Does this project actually relate to Lucene or not? Apache Connectors
>> Framework tells me it is either a generic connectors framework for
>> connecting anything to anything, or it is for connecting httpd to
>> something else, neither of which I suspect are what it is all about.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> If the name is going to change (which sounds like a good idea) I'd
>> suggest going for something more abstract, to which you can give
>> meaning: Apache Connecto, or some such.
>
> +1 from me too.
I like it too +1
simon
>
>
> p
>
>> Upayavira
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors
Framework"
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 24/08/2010 22:55, Upayavira wrote:
> But people aren't going to be thinking about governing TLPs when making
> assumptions about a name.
>
> Does this project actually relate to Lucene or not? Apache Connectors
> Framework tells me it is either a generic connectors framework for
> connecting anything to anything, or it is for connecting httpd to
> something else, neither of which I suspect are what it is all about.
Exactly.
> If the name is going to change (which sounds like a good idea) I'd
> suggest going for something more abstract, to which you can give
> meaning: Apache Connecto, or some such.
+1 from me too.
p
> Upayavira
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com>.
On 8/27/2010 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> For me as a know-nothing outsider the suggestion of Content Connector
> Framework pointed me a bit towards what it does.
+1 from the peanut gallery. :) I had the same thought - part of my (also
know-nothing outsider) knee-jerk issue with the ACF name is precisely that
there are so many different kinds of "connector".
As a side note re: Web Services in particular, I agree that it's not the
greatest name and if we had the ability to do it again I think I'd have
pushed against it. The WS PMC is certainly not the only place within Apache
we do Web Services, but now that Axis is out of there and WS is evolving
towards common framework components, it's somewhat better name-wise.
> OpenContentConnectorFramework is descriptive but a bit long. OpenCCF?
>
> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your
> throat... Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since
> you've added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly
> broad Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since
> you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope
> and includes a branding word.
Just curious, why isn't "Content" just as much a "branding word" as "Open"?
--Glen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors
Framework"
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Mmmm...some good ones there - I like manifold :)
On 8/30/10 1:23 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> It seems to me that the pivotal problem here is the word connector. On
> the one hand, it could mean almost anything to almost anyone. On the
> other hand, it has a specific denotation in the vicinity of httpd.
> Everything at Apache is in the vicinity of httpd.
>
> I'd offer the following 'made-up' options, all following Apache:
>
> - manifold (many connections)
> - omnivore (eats anything)
> - rapunzel (spins straw into gold)
> - diogenes (seeking for something)
> - lantern (ditto)
> - helium (fuel for Solr)
>
> The whole question of brand management strikes me as interesting: is
> it, in fact, the job of the incubator PMC to groom the Apache branding
> portfolio by guiding new projects towards better names? Is that in our
> charter, or should we, as Chris suggests, defer to someone else for
> problems in this area.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>> If I may: since we're discussing marks, why not post to trademarks@ and ask Shane and crew to weigh in? Maybe you have already, but if so, I haven't seen that discussion mentioned over here on general@incubator.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/10 10:03 AM, "Grant Ignersoll" <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your throat...
>>> Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
>>> Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
>>> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope and includes a branding word.
>>
>> So, the word "open" somehow alleviates your concern? I don't get that. If your objection is that it comes across as being _the_ Apache connector library, then how does "Open" modulate that? It's still the Apache Open Connector Framework. It's still descriptive and still implies it's the one. Besides, it's the ASF, isn't "Open" implied/redundant? We would never have the Apache Closed Connector Framework, right?
>>
>> Likewise, the word Content implies the same "only" status, albeit here I will give you that it distinguishes it from Tomcat Connector somewhat, although the Tomcat Connector is just that, the Tomcat connector. However, I still don't buy that it is a "branding" word. Content is pretty much meaningless. Everything is content. I have no doubt that we could write a plugin for ACF that connected to Tomcat and got Content out of it. Heck, we already do. It's called a web crawler.
>>
>> So, that leaves us, in my mind w/ the option of some made up name or we stick w/ ACF. I'm all for a made up one if someone comes up with one, I just don't know what it is and no one in the community seems to have one either. ACF fits and the community likes it. It's not unprecedented at the ASF and I don't think it is confusing with Tomcat Connector.
>>
>> At any rate, the community would like some resolution. Should I just call an official vote on ACF and if it loses then we will go back to the drawing board?
>>
>> -Grant
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@yahoo.com>.
Here's a non-abstract one:
- Apache Data (Source?) Connectors?
Perhaps "Data (Source)" would make it clear what this is about.
Otis
----- Original Message ----
> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 1:23:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
>Connectors Framework"
>
> It seems to me that the pivotal problem here is the word connector. On
> the one hand, it could mean almost anything to almost anyone. On the
> other hand, it has a specific denotation in the vicinity of httpd.
> Everything at Apache is in the vicinity of httpd.
>
> I'd offer the following 'made-up' options, all following Apache:
>
> - manifold (many connections)
> - omnivore (eats anything)
> - rapunzel (spins straw into gold)
> - diogenes (seeking for something)
> - lantern (ditto)
> - helium (fuel for Solr)
>
> The whole question of brand management strikes me as interesting: is
> it, in fact, the job of the incubator PMC to groom the Apache branding
> portfolio by guiding new projects towards better names? Is that in our
> charter, or should we, as Chris suggests, defer to someone else for
> problems in this area.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > If I may: since we're discussing marks, why not post to trademarks@ and ask
>Shane and crew to weigh in? Maybe you have already, but if so, I haven't seen
>that discussion mentioned over here on general@incubator.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 8/30/10 10:03 AM, "Grant Ignersoll" <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your
>throat...
> >> Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've
>added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
> >> Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since you've
>clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
> >> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope
>and includes a branding word.
> >
> > So, the word "open" somehow alleviates your concern? I don't get that. If
>your objection is that it comes across as being _the_ Apache connector library,
>then how does "Open" modulate that? It's still the Apache Open Connector
>Framework. It's still descriptive and still implies it's the one. Besides,
>it's the ASF, isn't "Open" implied/redundant? We would never have the Apache
>Closed Connector Framework, right?
> >
> > Likewise, the word Content implies the same "only" status, albeit here I
>will give you that it distinguishes it from Tomcat Connector somewhat, although
>the Tomcat Connector is just that, the Tomcat connector. However, I still
>don't buy that it is a "branding" word. Content is pretty much meaningless.
> Everything is content. I have no doubt that we could write a plugin for ACF
>that connected to Tomcat and got Content out of it. Heck, we already do. It's
>called a web crawler.
> >
> > So, that leaves us, in my mind w/ the option of some made up name or we
>stick w/ ACF. I'm all for a made up one if someone comes up with one, I just
>don't know what it is and no one in the community seems to have one either.
> ACF fits and the community likes it. It's not unprecedented at the ASF and I
>don't think it is confusing with Tomcat Connector.
> >
> > At any rate, the community would like some resolution. Should I just call
>an official vote on ACF and if it loses then we will go back to the drawing
>board?
> >
> > -Grant
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > Senior Computer Scientist
> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> > Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
> > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the pivotal problem here is the word connector. On
> the one hand, it could mean almost anything to almost anyone. On the
> other hand, it has a specific denotation in the vicinity of httpd.
> Everything at Apache is in the vicinity of httpd.
>
> I'd offer the following 'made-up' options, all following Apache:
>
> - manifold (many connections)
> - omnivore (eats anything)
> - rapunzel (spins straw into gold)
> - diogenes (seeking for something)
> - lantern (ditto)
> - helium (fuel for Solr)
>
> The whole question of brand management strikes me as interesting: is
> it, in fact, the job of the incubator PMC to groom the Apache branding
> portfolio by guiding new projects towards better names? Is that in our
> charter, or should we, as Chris suggests, defer to someone else for
> problems in this area.
FWIW, I think we should defer to the project PMC to make their own
decision. We can advise them that they're making a bad choice - as
has been done - but really, they can either take the advice or leave
it. The important thing is that they come up with a name that they
can rally around. Assuming they've done the mark searches, it's not
clear why we have much of a stake in this other than friendly
advice....
--tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
ok, I fell off the main sequence.
On Aug 30, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, helium is the output product of a sun-like star, not the fuel. That
> would be hydrogen.
>
> Karl
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the pivotal problem here is the word connector. On
>> the one hand, it could mean almost anything to almost anyone. On the
>> other hand, it has a specific denotation in the vicinity of httpd.
>> Everything at Apache is in the vicinity of httpd.
>>
>> I'd offer the following 'made-up' options, all following Apache:
>>
>> - manifold (many connections)
>> - omnivore (eats anything)
>> - rapunzel (spins straw into gold)
>> - diogenes (seeking for something)
>> - lantern (ditto)
>> - helium (fuel for Solr)
>>
>> The whole question of brand management strikes me as interesting: is
>> it, in fact, the job of the incubator PMC to groom the Apache branding
>> portfolio by guiding new projects towards better names? Is that in our
>> charter, or should we, as Chris suggests, defer to someone else for
>> problems in this area.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> If I may: since we're discussing marks, why not post to trademarks@ and
>> ask Shane and crew to weigh in? Maybe you have already, but if so, I haven't
>> seen that discussion mentioned over here on general@incubator.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/30/10 10:03 AM, "Grant Ignersoll" <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your
>> throat...
>>>> Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've
>> added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
>>>> Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since
>> you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
>>>> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the
>> scope and includes a branding word.
>>>
>>> So, the word "open" somehow alleviates your concern? I don't get that.
>> If your objection is that it comes across as being _the_ Apache connector
>> library, then how does "Open" modulate that? It's still the Apache Open
>> Connector Framework. It's still descriptive and still implies it's the one.
>> Besides, it's the ASF, isn't "Open" implied/redundant? We would never have
>> the Apache Closed Connector Framework, right?
>>>
>>> Likewise, the word Content implies the same "only" status, albeit here I
>> will give you that it distinguishes it from Tomcat Connector somewhat,
>> although the Tomcat Connector is just that, the Tomcat connector. However,
>> I still don't buy that it is a "branding" word. Content is pretty much
>> meaningless. Everything is content. I have no doubt that we could write a
>> plugin for ACF that connected to Tomcat and got Content out of it. Heck, we
>> already do. It's called a web crawler.
>>>
>>> So, that leaves us, in my mind w/ the option of some made up name or we
>> stick w/ ACF. I'm all for a made up one if someone comes up with one, I
>> just don't know what it is and no one in the community seems to have one
>> either. ACF fits and the community likes it. It's not unprecedented at the
>> ASF and I don't think it is confusing with Tomcat Connector.
>>>
>>> At any rate, the community would like some resolution. Should I just
>> call an official vote on ACF and if it loses then we will go back to the
>> drawing board?
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>>> Senior Computer Scientist
>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>>> Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/<http://sunset.usc.edu/%7Emattmann/>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>.
FWIW, helium is the output product of a sun-like star, not the fuel. That
would be hydrogen.
Karl
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> It seems to me that the pivotal problem here is the word connector. On
> the one hand, it could mean almost anything to almost anyone. On the
> other hand, it has a specific denotation in the vicinity of httpd.
> Everything at Apache is in the vicinity of httpd.
>
> I'd offer the following 'made-up' options, all following Apache:
>
> - manifold (many connections)
> - omnivore (eats anything)
> - rapunzel (spins straw into gold)
> - diogenes (seeking for something)
> - lantern (ditto)
> - helium (fuel for Solr)
>
> The whole question of brand management strikes me as interesting: is
> it, in fact, the job of the incubator PMC to groom the Apache branding
> portfolio by guiding new projects towards better names? Is that in our
> charter, or should we, as Chris suggests, defer to someone else for
> problems in this area.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > If I may: since we're discussing marks, why not post to trademarks@ and
> ask Shane and crew to weigh in? Maybe you have already, but if so, I haven't
> seen that discussion mentioned over here on general@incubator.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 8/30/10 10:03 AM, "Grant Ignersoll" <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your
> throat...
> >> Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've
> added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
> >> Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since
> you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
> >> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the
> scope and includes a branding word.
> >
> > So, the word "open" somehow alleviates your concern? I don't get that.
> If your objection is that it comes across as being _the_ Apache connector
> library, then how does "Open" modulate that? It's still the Apache Open
> Connector Framework. It's still descriptive and still implies it's the one.
> Besides, it's the ASF, isn't "Open" implied/redundant? We would never have
> the Apache Closed Connector Framework, right?
> >
> > Likewise, the word Content implies the same "only" status, albeit here I
> will give you that it distinguishes it from Tomcat Connector somewhat,
> although the Tomcat Connector is just that, the Tomcat connector. However,
> I still don't buy that it is a "branding" word. Content is pretty much
> meaningless. Everything is content. I have no doubt that we could write a
> plugin for ACF that connected to Tomcat and got Content out of it. Heck, we
> already do. It's called a web crawler.
> >
> > So, that leaves us, in my mind w/ the option of some made up name or we
> stick w/ ACF. I'm all for a made up one if someone comes up with one, I
> just don't know what it is and no one in the community seems to have one
> either. ACF fits and the community likes it. It's not unprecedented at the
> ASF and I don't think it is confusing with Tomcat Connector.
> >
> > At any rate, the community would like some resolution. Should I just
> call an official vote on ACF and if it loses then we will go back to the
> drawing board?
> >
> > -Grant
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > Senior Computer Scientist
> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> > Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
> > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/<http://sunset.usc.edu/%7Emattmann/>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
It seems to me that the pivotal problem here is the word connector. On
the one hand, it could mean almost anything to almost anyone. On the
other hand, it has a specific denotation in the vicinity of httpd.
Everything at Apache is in the vicinity of httpd.
I'd offer the following 'made-up' options, all following Apache:
- manifold (many connections)
- omnivore (eats anything)
- rapunzel (spins straw into gold)
- diogenes (seeking for something)
- lantern (ditto)
- helium (fuel for Solr)
The whole question of brand management strikes me as interesting: is
it, in fact, the job of the incubator PMC to groom the Apache branding
portfolio by guiding new projects towards better names? Is that in our
charter, or should we, as Chris suggests, defer to someone else for
problems in this area.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> If I may: since we're discussing marks, why not post to trademarks@ and ask Shane and crew to weigh in? Maybe you have already, but if so, I haven't seen that discussion mentioned over here on general@incubator.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> On 8/30/10 10:03 AM, "Grant Ignersoll" <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your throat...
>> Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
>> Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
>> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope and includes a branding word.
>
> So, the word "open" somehow alleviates your concern? I don't get that. If your objection is that it comes across as being _the_ Apache connector library, then how does "Open" modulate that? It's still the Apache Open Connector Framework. It's still descriptive and still implies it's the one. Besides, it's the ASF, isn't "Open" implied/redundant? We would never have the Apache Closed Connector Framework, right?
>
> Likewise, the word Content implies the same "only" status, albeit here I will give you that it distinguishes it from Tomcat Connector somewhat, although the Tomcat Connector is just that, the Tomcat connector. However, I still don't buy that it is a "branding" word. Content is pretty much meaningless. Everything is content. I have no doubt that we could write a plugin for ACF that connected to Tomcat and got Content out of it. Heck, we already do. It's called a web crawler.
>
> So, that leaves us, in my mind w/ the option of some made up name or we stick w/ ACF. I'm all for a made up one if someone comes up with one, I just don't know what it is and no one in the community seems to have one either. ACF fits and the community likes it. It's not unprecedented at the ASF and I don't think it is confusing with Tomcat Connector.
>
> At any rate, the community would like some resolution. Should I just call an official vote on ACF and if it loses then we will go back to the drawing board?
>
> -Grant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Guys,
If I may: since we're discussing marks, why not post to trademarks@ and ask Shane and crew to weigh in? Maybe you have already, but if so, I haven't seen that discussion mentioned over here on general@incubator.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Chris
On 8/30/10 10:03 AM, "Grant Ignersoll" <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your throat...
> Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
> Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope and includes a branding word.
So, the word "open" somehow alleviates your concern? I don't get that. If your objection is that it comes across as being _the_ Apache connector library, then how does "Open" modulate that? It's still the Apache Open Connector Framework. It's still descriptive and still implies it's the one. Besides, it's the ASF, isn't "Open" implied/redundant? We would never have the Apache Closed Connector Framework, right?
Likewise, the word Content implies the same "only" status, albeit here I will give you that it distinguishes it from Tomcat Connector somewhat, although the Tomcat Connector is just that, the Tomcat connector. However, I still don't buy that it is a "branding" word. Content is pretty much meaningless. Everything is content. I have no doubt that we could write a plugin for ACF that connected to Tomcat and got Content out of it. Heck, we already do. It's called a web crawler.
So, that leaves us, in my mind w/ the option of some made up name or we stick w/ ACF. I'm all for a made up one if someone comes up with one, I just don't know what it is and no one in the community seems to have one either. ACF fits and the community likes it. It's not unprecedented at the ASF and I don't think it is confusing with Tomcat Connector.
At any rate, the community would like some resolution. Should I just call an official vote on ACF and if it loses then we will go back to the drawing board?
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your throat...
> Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
> Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
> OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope and includes a branding word.
So, the word "open" somehow alleviates your concern? I don't get that. If your objection is that it comes across as being _the_ Apache connector library, then how does "Open" modulate that? It's still the Apache Open Connector Framework. It's still descriptive and still implies it's the one. Besides, it's the ASF, isn't "Open" implied/redundant? We would never have the Apache Closed Connector Framework, right?
Likewise, the word Content implies the same "only" status, albeit here I will give you that it distinguishes it from Tomcat Connector somewhat, although the Tomcat Connector is just that, the Tomcat connector. However, I still don't buy that it is a "branding" word. Content is pretty much meaningless. Everything is content. I have no doubt that we could write a plugin for ACF that connected to Tomcat and got Content out of it. Heck, we already do. It's called a web crawler.
So, that leaves us, in my mind w/ the option of some made up name or we stick w/ ACF. I'm all for a made up one if someone comes up with one, I just don't know what it is and no one in the community seems to have one either. ACF fits and the community likes it. It's not unprecedented at the ASF and I don't think it is confusing with Tomcat Connector.
At any rate, the community would like some resolution. Should I just call an official vote on ACF and if it loses then we will go back to the drawing board?
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 27, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Upayavira wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:41 +1000, Gav... wrote:
>>> I think the title of the name change is a little misleading.
>>>
>>> We are not Replacing 'Lucene' with 'Apache' .
>>>
>>> Apache is a given.
>>>
>>> IOW - The proposal is either:
>>>
>>> Change "Apache Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
>>>
>>> or:
>>>
>>> Change "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Connectors Framework"
>>>
>>> It should therefore be clear that the only change being proposed here is the
>>> 'dropping' of the word 'Lucene' due to the fact that Lucene is no longer its
>>> governing TLP.
>>
>> But people aren't going to be thinking about governing TLPs when making
>> assumptions about a name.
>>
>> Does this project actually relate to Lucene or not? Apache Connectors
>> Framework tells me it is either a generic connectors framework for
>> connecting anything to anything, or it is for connecting httpd to
>> something else, neither of which I suspect are what it is all about.
>>
>
> It is, perhaps, worthwhile to give a brief description about the project, taken from the website:
> <snip>
> The Apache Connectors Framework (ACF) is an effort to provide build and support an open source framework for connecting source content repositories like Microsoft Sharepoint and EMC Documentum, to target repositories or indexes, such as Apache Solr. ACF also defines a security model for target repositories that permits them to enforce source-repository security policies.
>
> Currently included connectors support FileNet P8 (IBM), Documentum (EMC), LiveLink (OpenText), Patriarch (Memex), Meridio (Autonomy), Windows shares (Microsoft), and SharePoint (Microsoft). Also included are a general file system connector, a general JDBC connector, a general RSS crawler, and a general web crawler. Currently supported targets include Apache Solr and QBase (formerly MetaCarta) GTS. The complete repository compatibility list can be found here.
> </snip>
>
> While it supports targets for Solr, it is not a Solr/Lucene only thing. The framework intends to be a generic connector framework such that if someone implements the source and the sync according to the framework design, it will work.
>
> FWIW, as was pointed out on the connector mailing list, there are also many other generic/descriptive names in Apache (disregarding the granddaddy of them all: HTTP Server, which I realize, of course, is a different story): HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer, Web Services, XML, XMLBeans, XML Graphics, Directory, Logging, OpenEJB, OpenJPA, Portals, Perl, TCL. Perhaps we should call it the Open Connector Framework? Or maybe if we remove the spaces, as in OpenConnectorFramework, then we are good?
>
Of those at least Web Services, XML, Logging, and Portals are sort of psuedo-projects that aggregate related little projects in that area. Along with the OpenFoo family there's the ActiveFoo family :-).
For me as a know-nothing outsider the suggestion of Content Connector Framework pointed me a bit towards what it does. OpenContentConnectorFramework is descriptive but a bit long. OpenCCF?
To try to illustrate my thinking rather than push a name down your throat...
Open ConnectorFramework/OpenConnectorFramework/OpenCF OK, since you've added a branding word. Not ideal since the purpose appears overly broad
Content Connector Framework/ContentConnectorFramework/CCF OK, since you've clarified the scope. Not ideal since has no branding word.
OpenContentConnectorFramework/OpenCCF better since it clarifies the scope and includes a branding word.
thanks
david jencks
> -Grant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 24, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:41 +1000, Gav... wrote:
>> I think the title of the name change is a little misleading.
>>
>> We are not Replacing 'Lucene' with 'Apache' .
>>
>> Apache is a given.
>>
>> IOW - The proposal is either:
>>
>> Change "Apache Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
>>
>> or:
>>
>> Change "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Connectors Framework"
>>
>> It should therefore be clear that the only change being proposed here is the
>> 'dropping' of the word 'Lucene' due to the fact that Lucene is no longer its
>> governing TLP.
>
> But people aren't going to be thinking about governing TLPs when making
> assumptions about a name.
>
> Does this project actually relate to Lucene or not? Apache Connectors
> Framework tells me it is either a generic connectors framework for
> connecting anything to anything, or it is for connecting httpd to
> something else, neither of which I suspect are what it is all about.
>
It is, perhaps, worthwhile to give a brief description about the project, taken from the website:
<snip>
The Apache Connectors Framework (ACF) is an effort to provide build and support an open source framework for connecting source content repositories like Microsoft Sharepoint and EMC Documentum, to target repositories or indexes, such as Apache Solr. ACF also defines a security model for target repositories that permits them to enforce source-repository security policies.
Currently included connectors support FileNet P8 (IBM), Documentum (EMC), LiveLink (OpenText), Patriarch (Memex), Meridio (Autonomy), Windows shares (Microsoft), and SharePoint (Microsoft). Also included are a general file system connector, a general JDBC connector, a general RSS crawler, and a general web crawler. Currently supported targets include Apache Solr and QBase (formerly MetaCarta) GTS. The complete repository compatibility list can be found here.
</snip>
While it supports targets for Solr, it is not a Solr/Lucene only thing. The framework intends to be a generic connector framework such that if someone implements the source and the sync according to the framework design, it will work.
FWIW, as was pointed out on the connector mailing list, there are also many other generic/descriptive names in Apache (disregarding the granddaddy of them all: HTTP Server, which I realize, of course, is a different story): HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer, Web Services, XML, XMLBeans, XML Graphics, Directory, Logging, OpenEJB, OpenJPA, Portals, Perl, TCL. Perhaps we should call it the Open Connector Framework? Or maybe if we remove the spaces, as in OpenConnectorFramework, then we are good?
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> If the name is going to change (which sounds like a good idea) I'd
> suggest going for something more abstract, to which you can give
> meaning: Apache Connecto, or some such.
+1. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 06:41 +1000, Gav... wrote:
> I think the title of the name change is a little misleading.
>
> We are not Replacing 'Lucene' with 'Apache' .
>
> Apache is a given.
>
> IOW - The proposal is either:
>
> Change "Apache Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
>
> or:
>
> Change "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Connectors Framework"
>
> It should therefore be clear that the only change being proposed here is the
> 'dropping' of the word 'Lucene' due to the fact that Lucene is no longer its
> governing TLP.
But people aren't going to be thinking about governing TLPs when making
assumptions about a name.
Does this project actually relate to Lucene or not? Apache Connectors
Framework tells me it is either a generic connectors framework for
connecting anything to anything, or it is for connecting httpd to
something else, neither of which I suspect are what it is all about.
If the name is going to change (which sounds like a good idea) I'd
suggest going for something more abstract, to which you can give
meaning: Apache Connecto, or some such.
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
I think the title of the name change is a little misleading.
We are not Replacing 'Lucene' with 'Apache' .
Apache is a given.
IOW - The proposal is either:
Change "Apache Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
or:
Change "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Connectors Framework"
It should therefore be clear that the only change being proposed here is the
'dropping' of the word 'Lucene' due to the fact that Lucene is no longer its
governing TLP.
Gav...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Borgermans [mailto:paul.borgermans@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 August 2010 6:33 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
> Connectors Framework"
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com>
> wrote:
> > Gotta agree with David here. I'd prefer a less ambiguous name.
> >
>
> Something in the line of "Apache Content Connectors Framework" maybe?
>
> Just my 0.02€
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Paul Borgermans <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com> wrote:
> Gotta agree with David here. I'd prefer a less ambiguous name.
>
Something in the line of "Apache Content Connectors Framework" maybe?
Just my 0.02€
Regards
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com>.
Gotta agree with David here. I'd prefer a less ambiguous name.
--Glen
"David Jencks" <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>As I attempted to politely make clear earlier I find this name extremely confusing. Web connectors are just one subject area I assume this project covers.
>
>I think its generally a good idea if projects don't use their names to imply they are the only apache implementation of a certain kind of functionality. In this case it seems to me that the name is implying that it is the official sole apache implementation of at least two distinct kinds of functionality other than what it actually does. (web container connectors of which mod_jk is an example and java connector architecture). To be blunt I think this is a really bad name and feels to me a bit like a land grab.
>
>thanks
>david jencks
>
>On Aug 23, 2010, at 11:38 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Pid * wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't there a risk of causing confusion with the Apache HTTPD mod_jk /
>>>> Tomcat Connector?
>>>
>>> Looks pretty distinct to me.
>> I agree, the risk that people confuse those two seems very low.
>> Especially since the mod_jk has been around for a while and is usually
>> referred to as mod_jk and not as Tomcat Connector AFAIK but I can be
>> wrong about the latter.
>>
>> simon
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 16:17, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think this requires a formal IPMC vote or can we just do it? Thankfully, I think most of our mailing lists, etc. are already "generic", so we shouldn't really need to change much in terms of branding other than the primary website.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>> from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> like this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the
>>>>>> Incubator.
>>>>>>> Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless there is an objection, I don't see a problem. Nothing in Apache
>>>>>> Connectors Framework smacks of a possible trademark issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Noel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
As I attempted to politely make clear earlier I find this name extremely confusing. Web connectors are just one subject area I assume this project covers.
I think its generally a good idea if projects don't use their names to imply they are the only apache implementation of a certain kind of functionality. In this case it seems to me that the name is implying that it is the official sole apache implementation of at least two distinct kinds of functionality other than what it actually does. (web container connectors of which mod_jk is an example and java connector architecture). To be blunt I think this is a really bad name and feels to me a bit like a land grab.
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 23, 2010, at 11:38 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Pid * wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't there a risk of causing confusion with the Apache HTTPD mod_jk /
>>> Tomcat Connector?
>>
>> Looks pretty distinct to me.
> I agree, the risk that people confuse those two seems very low.
> Especially since the mod_jk has been around for a while and is usually
> referred to as mod_jk and not as Tomcat Connector AFAIK but I can be
> wrong about the latter.
>
> simon
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 16:17, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think this requires a formal IPMC vote or can we just do it? Thankfully, I think most of our mailing lists, etc. are already "generic", so we shouldn't really need to change much in terms of branding other than the primary website.
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
>>>>> project
>>>>>>> from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
>>>>> something
>>>>>>> like this?
>>>>>
>>>>>> LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the
>>>>> Incubator.
>>>>>> Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless there is an objection, I don't see a problem. Nothing in Apache
>>>>> Connectors Framework smacks of a possible trademark issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Noel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Pid * wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a risk of causing confusion with the Apache HTTPD mod_jk /
>> Tomcat Connector?
>
> Looks pretty distinct to me.
I agree, the risk that people confuse those two seems very low.
Especially since the mod_jk has been around for a while and is usually
referred to as mod_jk and not as Tomcat Connector AFAIK but I can be
wrong about the latter.
simon
>
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 16:17, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think this requires a formal IPMC vote or can we just do it? Thankfully, I think most of our mailing lists, etc. are already "generic", so we shouldn't really need to change much in terms of branding other than the primary website.
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
>>>> project
>>>>>> from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
>>>> to
>>>>>> cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
>>>> something
>>>>>> like this?
>>>>
>>>>> LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the
>>>> Incubator.
>>>>> Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point.
>>>>
>>>> Unless there is an objection, I don't see a problem. Nothing in Apache
>>>> Connectors Framework smacks of a possible trademark issue.
>>>>
>>>> --- Noel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Pid * wrote:
> Isn't there a risk of causing confusion with the Apache HTTPD mod_jk /
> Tomcat Connector?
Looks pretty distinct to me.
>
>
> p
>
> On 18 Aug 2010, at 16:17, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Do you think this requires a formal IPMC vote or can we just do it? Thankfully, I think most of our mailing lists, etc. are already "generic", so we shouldn't really need to change much in terms of branding other than the primary website.
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>
>>> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
>>> project
>>>>> from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
>>> to
>>>>> cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
>>> something
>>>>> like this?
>>>
>>>> LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the
>>> Incubator.
>>>> Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point.
>>>
>>> Unless there is an objection, I don't see a problem. Nothing in Apache
>>> Connectors Framework smacks of a possible trademark issue.
>>>
>>> --- Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache
Connectors Framework"
Posted by Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>.
Isn't there a risk of causing confusion with the Apache HTTPD mod_jk /
Tomcat Connector?
p
On 18 Aug 2010, at 16:17, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> Do you think this requires a formal IPMC vote or can we just do it? Thankfully, I think most of our mailing lists, etc. are already "generic", so we shouldn't really need to change much in terms of branding other than the primary website.
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>
>>>> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
>> project
>>>> from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
>> to
>>>> cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
>> something
>>>> like this?
>>
>>> LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the
>> Incubator.
>>> Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point.
>>
>> Unless there is an objection, I don't see a problem. Nothing in Apache
>> Connectors Framework smacks of a possible trademark issue.
>>
>> --- Noel
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
Do you think this requires a formal IPMC vote or can we just do it? Thankfully, I think most of our mailing lists, etc. are already "generic", so we shouldn't really need to change much in terms of branding other than the primary website.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
> project
>>> from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
> to
>>> cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
> something
>>> like this?
>
>> LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the
> Incubator.
>> Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point.
>
> Unless there is an objection, I don't see a problem. Nothing in Apache
> Connectors Framework smacks of a possible trademark issue.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
project
> > from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
to
> > cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
something
> > like this?
> LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the
Incubator.
> Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point.
Unless there is an objection, I don't see a problem. Nothing in Apache
Connectors Framework smacks of a possible trademark issue.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Name change from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework"
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:59 AM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our project from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and to cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing something like this?
Just to clarify, LCF is not a subproject of Lucene at the moment, since it is in the Incubator. The Lucene PMC was sponsoring LCF and is willing to continue to do so. Nothing else project wise would change other than the name at this point. Upon graduation, it likely make sense for LCF/ACF to be a TLP.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org