Re: Names ( was: Re: Riffing again on another tangent )

[Remy Maucherat <rm...@home.com>]

> Ok, my head hurts - either I'm too tired or too many people are talking at
> the same time about the same thing in too many different ways.
>
> One thing is clear - almost nobody knows what is avalon, and it seems a
> reasonable majority preferes a separate project.

+1.

> Another thing is also clear - the name and organization will be what the
> majority of commiters decide - and arguing about which is better is mostly
> a waste of time.
>
> And another thing that I think is clear - components can and will be
> developed, and almost everyone agrees that it doesn't matter so much where
> ( avalon, agora, commons, inside projects ) - all it matters is the
> quality of the code and to be easy to pull.
>
> So please, let's stop arguing about names: having a list with all
> proposed names - including avalon - in the proposal will be enough, and
> counting should be all that's needed.
>
> Peter - except for naming the library avalon-library ( if the commiters
> agree with that ) I don't think there is anything else we can do - the
> current code from avalon needs work before beeing ready for the library,
> and it should be treated the same way as all other project's components,
> and the library commiters will include by default all avalon commiters.

Common sense. +1.

> I think avalon  would be a bad choice - so I'll put my +1 next to either
> agora or library ( sorry for "commons", but it's a new word for me ).

+1 for Agora, which IMO is a good balance between being cool and being
self-explanatory. I don't like "commons" either.

Remy