Re: JSecurity name change - pre vote

["Alan D. Cabrera" <al...@gmail.com>]

I think that you misunderstand why the name must be changed.  It's not  
a marketing thing.  Its because the name collides with other similar  
external projects and should be changed.  Given that, we may as well  
choose a name now and move on.


Regards,
Alan

On Dec 30, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Tim Veil wrote:

> I say we keep the current name.  Lets move forward with the  
> repackage and work toward exiting the incubator.  If we get out  
> there, there is a lack of adoption and we can trace it back to poor  
> branding then we can change the name.
>
> Tim
>
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
>
>> I think we do need to put some concrete plan in place here, so I  
>> think a vote is in order.
>>
>> I support changing the name, if we come up with a name that we  
>> like.  Unfortunately, I don't like most of the ideas that haven't  
>> already shown to be in conflict with some project out there.  I did  
>> like Apache Fortress, Stronghold, and Shield, but I think these  
>> could be more problematic than JSecurity.
>>
>> Given that, I'd prefer to leave the name as it is until we come up  
>> with something that has more popular support.  We do need to go  
>> ahead and repackage everything, so this question is holding up a  
>> lot of work.  Let's make a decision!
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>>> As this needs to be clearly resolved before we exit the Incubator,  
>>> I believe
>>> that we have 2 questions that we need to vote on formally:
>>>
>>> 1.  Will JSecurity be renamed?
>>> 2.  If so, what will that new name be?
>>>
>>> Should we start a vote for #1, and depending on its outcome, then  
>>> have a
>>> vote for #2?
>>>
>>> I surface #1 because I don't think we as a team reached a clear  
>>> consensus as
>>> to whether or not we must do that.  I'd like to just formalize  
>>> that intent
>>> in a vote just to make it absolutely clear.
>>>
>>> The only feedback we got from Legal about retaining the JSecurity  
>>> name was
>>> from Henri Yandell:
>>>
>>> "Given that it's a name you've been using for 4 years, and it's very
>>> generic [jXxx being a common pattern in our space and Security being
>>> very generic]; I'm inclined to keep the current name; though by the
>>> same reasoning, it's a weak name as "Apache JSecurity" isn't very  
>>> good
>>> branding."
>>>
>>> indicating that Legal apparently doesn't perceive a naming  
>>> conflict (no one
>>> else made any comments in over 2 weeks).  If that is the case, it  
>>> appears
>>> the decision is left to the project team, which seems like a vote  
>>> would be
>>> in order.
>>>
>>> Please note that I have no ulterior motive in kicking this thread  
>>> off - I've
>>> become quite accustomed to one or two of the other proposed names  
>>> and have
>>> no problems using them if the team decides that is the appropriate  
>>> course of
>>> action.  I'm just trying to resolve both of these two questions  
>>> definitively
>>> before next month's board report, which is coming up very soon.
>>>
>>> What should we do next?
>>>
>>> - Les
>>
>

Re: JSecurity name change - pre vote

[Tim Veil <tj...@gmail.com>]

My reading of Les' email and the feedback from legal led me to believe  
that a name change was not required, at least not on a legal basis.   
The comment from legal suggested the only drawback to JSecurity was  
that it wasn't "very good branding".  At this juncture, I think this  
is a very weak reason to change a name.  The only reason to change the  
name now would be because a) we will be legally forced to change it  
eventually (dubious)  or b) another, more viable name has greater  
cachet (maybe).  From my reading of the dozens and dozens of emails  
related to this topic I haven't heard any convincing argument for a or  
b.

I'm sure I'm not alone here when I say that the name of a project  
means very, very little when making a technology selection.  There are  
some truly awful project names out there that I use everyday because  
they get the job done.  If we turn this project into what we think and  
know it can be, our users won't care what its called.  Much like the  
logging facade discussion, I wish we could move beyond this issue.   
Just my opinion.  Happy new year and go tigers ;)

Tim




On Jan 1, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> I think that you misunderstand why the name must be changed.  It's  
> not a marketing thing.  Its because the name collides with other  
> similar external projects and should be changed.  Given that, we may  
> as well choose a name now and move on.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Tim Veil wrote:
>
>> I say we keep the current name.  Lets move forward with the  
>> repackage and work toward exiting the incubator.  If we get out  
>> there, there is a lack of adoption and we can trace it back to poor  
>> branding then we can change the name.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
>>
>>> I think we do need to put some concrete plan in place here, so I  
>>> think a vote is in order.
>>>
>>> I support changing the name, if we come up with a name that we  
>>> like.  Unfortunately, I don't like most of the ideas that haven't  
>>> already shown to be in conflict with some project out there.  I  
>>> did like Apache Fortress, Stronghold, and Shield, but I think  
>>> these could be more problematic than JSecurity.
>>>
>>> Given that, I'd prefer to leave the name as it is until we come up  
>>> with something that has more popular support.  We do need to go  
>>> ahead and repackage everything, so this question is holding up a  
>>> lot of work.  Let's make a decision!
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>
>>>> As this needs to be clearly resolved before we exit the  
>>>> Incubator, I believe
>>>> that we have 2 questions that we need to vote on formally:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Will JSecurity be renamed?
>>>> 2.  If so, what will that new name be?
>>>>
>>>> Should we start a vote for #1, and depending on its outcome, then  
>>>> have a
>>>> vote for #2?
>>>>
>>>> I surface #1 because I don't think we as a team reached a clear  
>>>> consensus as
>>>> to whether or not we must do that.  I'd like to just formalize  
>>>> that intent
>>>> in a vote just to make it absolutely clear.
>>>>
>>>> The only feedback we got from Legal about retaining the JSecurity  
>>>> name was
>>>> from Henri Yandell:
>>>>
>>>> "Given that it's a name you've been using for 4 years, and it's  
>>>> very
>>>> generic [jXxx being a common pattern in our space and Security  
>>>> being
>>>> very generic]; I'm inclined to keep the current name; though by the
>>>> same reasoning, it's a weak name as "Apache JSecurity" isn't very  
>>>> good
>>>> branding."
>>>>
>>>> indicating that Legal apparently doesn't perceive a naming  
>>>> conflict (no one
>>>> else made any comments in over 2 weeks).  If that is the case, it  
>>>> appears
>>>> the decision is left to the project team, which seems like a vote  
>>>> would be
>>>> in order.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that I have no ulterior motive in kicking this thread  
>>>> off - I've
>>>> become quite accustomed to one or two of the other proposed names  
>>>> and have
>>>> no problems using them if the team decides that is the  
>>>> appropriate course of
>>>> action.  I'm just trying to resolve both of these two questions  
>>>> definitively
>>>> before next month's board report, which is coming up very soon.
>>>>
>>>> What should we do next?
>>>>
>>>> - Les
>>>
>>
>