Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Naming the Simultaneous Release and p

["Daniel Megert" <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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...

> I second that. So far we hear about
restrictions during conversations but there is not a single pointer to
explicit, descriptive and detailed list of these restrictions and where
they come from.

I asked for that
several times and what I concluded from the responses so far is that there
is not a clear definition of allowed <Foo>. The important point seems
that the Foundations would like to register the name as trademark.
However, I am not sure whether this is really specified as must somewhere.
If so, where?

Dani



From:
       Aleksandar
Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Eclipse
Planning Council private list <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       03.10.2018
08:59
Subject:
       Re:
[eclipse.org-planning-council] Naming the Simultaneous Release and products
Sent
by:        eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:36 AM Ed Merks
<ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Wayne,
Verbose comments below. :-(

On 28.09.2018 22:20, Wayne Beaton wrote:
I'd like to add an agenda item for our
next call. 

We need to have a name for the simultaneous
release and the products that we build from it.
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.
I would like to frame the process for
selecting this name on our next call.
Haven't we done this before?

To be clear, we need to select a name
for the simultaneous release itself. In part, because the simultaneous
release is actually a simultaneous release and so we need to distinguish
it from the others (e.g. the Science and Jakarta EE working groups). 
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...
When I refer to the "products",
I mean the downloads that we refer to today as "Eclipse IDE for ..."
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.

The name of the simultaneous release
and corresponding products can be the same. e.g. the "Eclipse PlaceholderIDE for Java Developers, 2018-12 Edition" is created from the
"Eclipse Placeholder Simultaneous Release".
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.

Note that the Eclipse PMC is in the process
of selecting a new name for the Top Level Project. I believe that the name
that they select could be fair game for the simultaneous release (I haven't
really thought it through), but I do not believe that there is any requirement
that the names have any formal relationship.
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?

I would like to invite the Eclipse Foundation's
marketing director Thabang Mashologu to attend the call.
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...

I second that. So far we hear about restrictions
during conversations but there is not a single pointer to explicit, descriptive
and detailed list of these restrictions and where they come from.
 

Thanks,

Wayne
--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Meet
us at EclipseCon
Europe 2018:
LUDWIGSBURG, OCTOBER 23 - 25


_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxxto request removal.

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxxto request removal.

-- 
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.