> > > 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-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
