Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAS6=7hMk7e_SB_Dv2LV9jhJKtMuNe0VNjim_foNmmR9VtPGcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+=KJmvj4wyosNTXVpnsH8PhS7jEyzkZngc682rGgZ3p28L42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS6=7gSUQe01_a+FCBfjSE2VesYDbR=iXd4odiXZSWUH6DFxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <569FC13A.3030406@nanthrax.net>
 <CAAS6=7hMk7e_SB_Dv2LV9jhJKtMuNe0VNjim_foNmmR9VtPGcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Malone <jamesmalone@google.com.INVALID>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:30:25 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+=KJmvKevua5aEVZa05ONKb0c08VXmRsPx3N1Zvgas7qPDCUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Dataflow Incubator Proposal
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11415108116b560529cc60e1

--001a11415108116b560529cc60e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
>
> I don't see anything in the proposal about Google ceasing the use of the
> brand
> "Google Cloud Dataflow".  Yet the co-existence of "Google Cloud Dataflow"
> and
> "Apache Dataflow" would conflict with Apache requirements for vendor
> neutrality and project independence.
>
> The issue seems similar to the recent proposal to incubate "Apache
> OpenMiracl"
> while allowing the "Miracl" company to continue distribution of the
> "Miracl"
> project.  That situation was was resolved by renaming the Apache project to
> "Milagro", allowing the Miracl company to continue benefitting from the
> brand
> they had invested in so heavily.
>

Apologies to my delay responding to the feedback about naming!

We anticipated there may be some concerns about the naming. The project
members also want to confront those concerns head-on so any issues related
to naming don't take away from the technical merit of the proposal. We're
open to coming up with a new name and renaming the proposed project if it's
prudent or required. To that end, I have a question about the order of
operations.

If we need to rename, we would ideally choose a new name, change the
project name at that time, and start our refactoring with that new name. Is
is acceptable for us to flag a name change as something we need to do as a
near-term (1st month) item in incubation (if accepted)? If a rename is
required I'd like to add it to our to-do roadmap but also not block our
proposal on a renaming. I ask so we can address this concern in the best
way possible.


>     http://markmail.org/message/tpiphl55rcyezcvd
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

--001a11415108116b560529cc60e1--