Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 38813 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2008 16:59:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Aug 2008 16:59:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18456 invoked by uid 500); 13 Aug 2008 16:59:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 18344 invoked by uid 500); 13 Aug 2008 16:59:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 18333 invoked by uid 99); 13 Aug 2008 16:59:38 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:59:38 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sccomer@cisco.com designates 171.71.176.71 as permitted sender) Received: from [171.71.176.71] (HELO sj-iport-2.cisco.com) (171.71.176.71) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:58:39 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,202,1217808000"; d="scan'208,217";a="74884925" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2008 16:58:07 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7DGw7Uv025127 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:07 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7DGw7wn006976 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:58:07 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:07 -0700 Received: from [10.89.20.155] ([10.89.20.155]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:06 -0700 Message-ID: <48A3129E.7020500@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:58:06 -0500 From: scott comer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Etch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070707010202080204030901" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2008 16:58:07.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[C225F1D0:01C8FD65] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5554; t=1218646687; x=1219510687; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sccomer@cisco.com; z=From:=20scott=20comer=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[PROPOSAL]=20Etch |Sender:=20; bh=VKY3TALppiFeEzAA2bOKrkWPzZCbBNJ7hHtopmf7P3I=; b=Ii2/8Eugsn8zUP3For2o269MYz6st6Bch8K2Gn9FHncaGciaWAb4FxtWnT ddy9SDAHDj3eRGcEnKV9Na2CvjagPNMkiWLVGSvJumpDyuqqk2YHxBFzGV2u G71k/STKAx; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=sccomer@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --------------070707010202080204030901 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit the discussion about names seems somewhat done. it is easy to get the impression from the volume that there is a demand for name change. in my opinion there isn't. certainly names is a rich topic and the discussion would never die down on it's own because it is so much fun. it's a wonder anything gets done... here is a summary of who's responded to our proposal and an indication of the topic. Craig.Russell@Sun.COM +1 cutting@apache.org +1 (MENTOR) henning@apache.org +1 (TOOMANY, NAME) niall.pemberton@gmail.com +1 (NAME) niclas@hedhman.org +1 (TOOGOOD, TOOMANY, NAME, MENTOR) pzfreo@gmail.com +1 yonik@apache.org +1 (TOOMANY, MENTOR) bdelacretaz@apache.org (TOOMANY) gsingers@apache.org (NAME) mike.edwards.inglenook@gmail.com (QUESTION) niklas@protocol7.com (NAME) noel@devtech.com (NAME) otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com (NAME) robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com (TOOMANY) uv@odoko.co.uk (TOOMANY) wrowe@rowe-clan.net (NAME) of the people that mention name (8), only 3 are voting: henning: concerned about confusion with debian. only says we need to be careful and explicit. niall: wants to see the q resolved. likes the name, sees no real objection. niclas: conflict with debian; only worries about it. of the rest, most like the name etch and seem to be just "tossing the ball around". the main other concern is that of confusion with Debian Etch vs. Apache Etch. There was some discussion about whether etch could get to the top of the google list. so, can we put the name question to bed? it was suggested that the podling could/should decide the issue for itself, later. is there a problem with that? are there any other concerns about the proposal which aren't addressed? scott out --------------070707010202080204030901--