[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [tiago@debian-ba.org: Re: New name: Call for opinions]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:

I'm getting a bit annoyed by your repeatatly stated attitude, that the name
doesnt really matter, as long as its not CDD. Your main argument for this
seems to be that any name can be misunderstood.

Not really.  I just wanted to disprove the argumant that a name should
contain an explanation.  In many cases it does not.  It is fine for me
if this can be approached but this is not a general feature of a name.

You don't like it?  Fine.  Last month I solved this kind of issues by
offereing a beer / whatever at DebConf.  Feel invited to have a drink
at my account at next DebConf. ;-)

Again, what do you want to say with this? That we should all get drunk and not
care anymore?

You noticed the smiley, right?

It seems (well, you stated it explicitly..) you don't like naming discussions,
I guess thats why you want them to be short


and thats why you offer these beers.

NO!!  It's just that I really liked to have some drinks with people at
DebConf and I'm desperately seeking for reasons to continue with this! ;-))

Believe me, if a bad name is choosen, we will have many and long naming
discussions in future (or the name will not be picked up and everybody will
just stick to CDD). So if you don't like naming discussions, you should
rather have a long one _now_.

Well, I did not counted the votes, but I had the feeling that we have a
majority in favour of the new name, some people who could live with the
new name and a few who dislike it (partly with invalid arguments).  I can
assure you that I'm absolutely willing to rename, and several people
who are deeply involved agree with me about this.

Changing this name has high costs, CDD is everywhere, not only in many peoples
minds, but also in package names, in binaries/scripts, in manpages, in
several web pages (we will loose search engine relevance) and documentations,
plus their translations. So we really shouldn't choose a new name lightly.

I agree.  And you can trust me that I know at how many places the old name
occures - I hold the bet that I personally inserted 50% of all it occurences
and I'm willing to substitue even more than I inserted myself.

Even though I'd like to be constructive and suggest a better name now, I'm not
sure if this is even a sensible approach. IMO we need to define the thing
first, and then look for a name. Do we have such a definition written down
somewhere? IMO this definition should also be short (while still complete),
three paragraphs at maximum, better two, even better one.

Very good point!
As you might know I tried kind of that in Extremadura and some raw sketch
is at http://wiki.debian.org/CDDNamingProposals (Thingy 1)

  # customises Debian for specific user needs which might be special working fields or language specifics
  # adds some substructure to Debian (meta packages, specific debtags, etc.) which simplifies usage for the target user group
  # has a special team of people working inside Debian and as an instance to contact upstream authors of relevant software
  # does not use any extra pieces outside of the debian.org domain

Way shorter is http://wiki.debian.org/CustomDebian

  a subset of Debian that is configured to support a particular target group out-of-the-box.

This is what we formerly used to describe what CDD means.  I would be happy
if somebody with proper language skills could turn this into a real definition.

Anyway, to not only critice let me suggest two names: "Compilation Inside
Debian" (CID) (Debian integrated Compilation sounds like dick) or "Debian
Remixed Distribution" (DRD). A thesaurus should be helpful to find other
iterations of the same meme. (BTW, I dont think we have to go for a three
letter acronym, two, four, five or six letters are also entirely valid
options :-)

Well, I do not really want to insist on a suggestion because it was my own
one.  But we should try to fucus the discussion.  What is your plan  to select
between all the suggestions? Would you volunteer to assembla a list and
prepare a voting ballot?  Who should vote?

I mentioned it above I hate this kind of discussions because it usually
drifts away.  The old name was found in a  30min session of three people.
Historically it was dominated by the idea of something different than our
"definition" above.  I was more or less convinced to accept.  Now we have
a more than one week lasting discussion between several people and the
longer this discussion lasts the farther a conclusion seems to be.  I
will now step back from the discussion for some time and will just
observe whether some agreement will be reached because I might be biased
and I do not want to put any weight of mine into it.

In summary: please don't choose the name lightly, just because you want to do
other stuff instead.

H01ger, I hope you know me enough that you know that I NEVER do anything
lightly.  I do things either wholeHeartly or I do not do it at all.
Considering the fact that the real grunt work of the renaming process
will basically sit on my own shoulders you can assume that I take it
really honest.

Do other stuff, if you don't want to discuss the name,
and leave that to people who want to.

Ups, yes - same conclusion as I have drawn above - nice to see that
we perfectly agree at least at this point.

Thanks for your input



Reply to: