|Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Naming the Simultaneous Release and products|
Verbose comments below. :-(
On 28.09.2018 22:20, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Who is "we" and why to they need it?
Up front there seems an underlying assumption that the name of the release and the name of the products are necessarily related, but I see later that is only one possibility.
Haven't we done this before?
This whole issue to me feels like we are flogging the same horse repeatedly and every time when we think the horse has stopped moving, it wakes up again and we have to start flogging it until it stops yet again. The last time the horse stopped moving, we ended up with "SimRel". The Foundation (and the Board, where I raised the topic) had nothing to say on the matter; no guidance whatsoever. Now we've gone through one release cycle with this in place with no signs of life from the horse, until now...
It appears that the underlying implication of your question that it's no longer politically-correct (branding-guideline-conformant) to call anything Eclipse IDE for Xyz because "Eclipse IDE" itself is not sufficiently qualified. That makes little sense to me so I question that assertion. After all, will there be more than one "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers" such that we need Eclipse Xyz for Java Developers so that, in the future, we can have Eclipse Abc for Java Developers, to distinguish what exists today from such a hypothetical future product?
I think the broader implication of all this is that anything of the form: "Eclipse <Foo>" is not politically-correct if Foo is descriptive rather than a "properly branded noun" because more than one thing might fit that description in the future even if that's not the case yet today. I'm not sure the branding guidelines are explicit on this, but it makes me wonder if the Eclipse Modeling Project will need to be renamed at some point in some hypothetical future when something new shows up and also wants to be an Eclipse Modeling Project and objects to the fact that "the" Eclipse Modeling Project is really just "an" Eclipse Modeling Project and therefore needs to be renamed to "Eclipse <FooBar> Modeling Project" to make room for their new project in the politically-correct Eclipse namescape. The same appears to apply for the Eclipse Modeling Framework.
It seems to me that another option is: <Placeholder1> =" SimRel", as previously decided, and <Placeholder2> = "", as seems sufficiently descriptively qualified. But apparently neither is sufficiently qualified because, apparently, SimRel and IDE are descriptive.
You you are asserting however that <Placeholder2> != "", which is something that seems questionable to me.
In any case, I would strongly recommend that we defer this topic until the name of the Eclipse Top Level project is politically correctified. Then we'd be in a better position to decide/understand if that name ought to be (could be used) in Placeholder1 and/or in Placeholder2.
I know it's endlessly fun to suggest names; Nick certainly comes up with many entertaining ones! But couldn't we please wait for the politically-correct, socially-acceptable, legally-agreeable branding game for the Eclipse TLP's to complete before we start doing the same process yet again for SimRel?
Could you also please clarify up front what are the branding guideline restrictions on "Eclipse <Foo>"? It seems there is an underlying constraint that it cannot actually be simply descriptive, but, as I've pointed out, that has a broader implication on the names of a great many projects at Eclipse...
Back to the top