Per my verbal comments in the TSC meeting, I do not think these guidelines will prevent the kind of problems we’ve had in the past.
For example, there’s nothing here that makes clear a name like “blockchain” is impermissible.
Regarding the notion of descriptive names, I’m unclear whether that is guidance to adopt that for new names or simply another option to fully abstract names like Ursa.
I would appreciate if the Marketing Committee could revise these guidelines with these points in mind and the others described in this thread. There may have been other verbal feedback from the TSC meeting which is not yet captured in this thread.
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:46 AM
To: Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger project naming guidelines - draft for discussion
Ah, I didn't mean to ignore:
On 6/6/19 6:48 AM, Shawn Amundson wrote:
Who are the current members of the MC?
They're not listed publicly, but they are representatives from our Premier Members, and their calls & discussion list are open to PR contacts at all General Members. It's defined in Section 5 of the Hyperledger Charter. Led by Dan O'Prey from Digital Asset and Alissa Worley from Accenture. It's how we coordinate with members on getting our collective word out about the projects and activities at HL. They don't have any perogative or control over what goes on in the technical side of Hyperledger, but we thought they might be helpful in thinking about naming guidelines.
Executive Director, Hyperledger