Hi, On Tuesday 23 September 2008 16:12, Andreas Tille wrote: > ... and a strategy. Throwing in more and more names is no strategy. You want to change the name, so I think you need to find a strategy for this. For example, keep the wikipage about suggested names updated. At the moment, there is not a single, structured place with all the proposals, listing their pros and cons as discussed on the list. (And yes, I consider this your duty, you want to change the name.) > I define > "acceptable" name as a name that is not missleading and nobody raises > honest problems against it. According to this definition, DISh is not acceptable. Good ;-) > I'm not sure that there is such a will - but I refuse to continue > promoting a good concept under a wrong name. That's why we need > some new name - if not with a consensus than with "some general > agreement" Consensus doesnt mean everybody agrees. At least, rough consensus doesnt mean that :-) > endless discussion which just drains time that > might be spend for coding. I'm *so* sick of this argument. Either you want to discuss properly or you dont have time to do it, or dont want to take the time. Pressuring discussions by saying one would rather spend the time doing something sensible IME is unproductive at best. Go coding. You can change the name of the cdd-dev package as often as you want (I dont say you should... just technically you can), if the new name is not good, it will not be picked up and the confusion about the name and the concept will be bigger, not smaller. So just choosing any new name, might actually hurt. I'd like to avoid that. regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpVEH13Got5a.pgp
Description: PGP signature