Home
The Toolkit for Online Communities
17235 Community Members, 1 member online, 1750 visitors today
Log In Register
OpenACS Home : Forums : OpenACS Q&A : Name poll results ...

Forum OpenACS Q&A: Name poll results ...

Icon of envelope Request notifications

Collapse
Posted by Don Baccus on
Thanks for all who participated.

It looks as though about 58% like the name "Open Architecture
Community System" (with 3 to 2 liking "OpenACS 4.2" rather than
"OACS-pronounced-Oaks 4.2").

About 27% like "Open ArsDigita Community System" with no change
(meaning no "OACS").  Is it safe to presume that these folks prefer
"OpenACS 4.2, the Open Architecture Community System" to "OACS 4.2",
as well?  One can't really say so for certain so I'm asking for some
informal feedback here.

If folks thing the poll's strong enough with its 37% plurality for
"OpenACS 4.2, the Open Architecture Community System at openacs.org"
then we should just go for it.

If folks think we need another poll to give those who rejected the two
"Open Architecture" variants a chance to choose between "OACS 4.2"
and  "OpenACS 4.2" ("Open Architecture" is a given at this point),
step forward and say so.

I have no desire to cut off participation by the community and will
run another poll if there's sentiment for it, but if not let's just
run with the poll result and save a little time.

What do folks think?

Collapse
Posted by James Thornton on
As I recall, the primary reason for changing the "OpenACS" name was to prevent confusion/comparison between ArsDigita's new Java direction and the OpenACS Tcl version. Now that aD is no more, it seems that reason is no longer valid.

Furthermore, OpenACS has been receiving an ample amount of exposure from people on discussion forums saying stuff like the "ACS will live on through the OpenACS community." It seems that changing the name now would confuse some people, and the community would lose some of the identity it has already established.

A few years ago Silicon Graphics changed to SGI, and look at its stock price now :).

I say keep it as OpenACS.

Collapse
Posted by Rocael Hernández Rizzardini on
We should stay with OpenACS with the meaning (Open ArsDigita Community System), anyway, must of us still have the spirit that started with aD, and no matter what, ArsDigita is a nice name and its pretty elegant. Maybe we should use the Architecture word as part of an slogan including it in the logo.

Lets say:

OpenACS, the Open Architecture.

Collapse
Posted by Don Baccus on
Sorry, I wasn't asking for minority opinion holders to argue that we ignore the poll results, which show that respondents are *quite* clearly in favor of changing the name to the "Open Architecture Community System".  Nearly 250 people responded, so I think we have a pretty good sample of the active members of our community.

I was asking if we should hold another poll to choose between "OpenACS, the Open Architecture Community System, presents OpenACS 4.2" and "OpenACS, the Open Architecture Community System, presents OACS 4.2".

These are the only two options on the table after the poll, IMO.

Collapse
Posted by MaineBob OConnor on

The Choices: Between Gold and Silver...

  1. "OpenACS, the Open Architecture Community System, presents OpenACS 4.2"
  2. "OpenACS, the Open Architecture Community System, presents OACS 4.2

I like option #1 preferred by 3 to 2 so to be selfish and unfair, I'd say NO poll so my favored option would win.

Had I prefered option #2, I'd say, Do another poll, where I might have a chance to "win the gold".

And no, we can't give out two Gold metals!

Overall, I could live with either option.

-Bob

Collapse
Posted by Ken Kennedy on
Well, you're the boss, Don, *grin*, but to be honest, I don't really consider 58% in a kinda confusing poll to be QUITE clearly. The poll stuck two questions into one poll:
  1. Should we change the "ArsDigita" to "Architecuture" in Open ArsDigita Community System?
  2. Should we change the acronym from "OpenACS" to "OACS"?
There was no way, for example, to vote for "Keep the name Open ArsDigita Community System, but change the acronym to OACS, 'cause I like the way it sounds ("oaks"). (Not that I would have, but just to make the point.)

Now dang. I went and complained. *grin*. So...short and sweet. I stongly prefer OpenACS to OACS. I actually like it more, plus we really do actually have publicity out there with that name. Plus, as was mentioned previously, this site IS openacs.org, and oacs.org is taken! (As is oacs.com, but oacs.net doesn't seem to be...).

Collapse
Posted by C. R. Oldham on
Or we could go counter-culture and use oacs.info.
Collapse
Posted by Ken Kennedy on
Freak. *grin*
Collapse
Posted by Rocael Hernández Rizzardini on
please, don't think about changing the domain, openacs.org is just OK!
Collapse
Posted by Don Baccus on
Well, you're the boss, Don, *grin*, but to be honest, I don't really consider 58% in a kinda confusing poll to be QUITE clear.

When I made the poll I also asked folks for input on the questions, and tried to make it clear that we could rip it down and put up a different poll if people didn't like my attempt. Frankly I expected people to shoot down my attempt and was rather surprised that no one did, that people just voted instead.

Nobody asked for a change so I assume people were either happy with it, or not unhappy enough to ask for a different approach.

Look ... we need to get closure here, one way or another. I'm willing to run another poll to further clarify things if enough folks want me to, but we need to get moving. I want to settle this before beta so we can massage the docs. There's really only one possible package change that may go in before I roll the thing and I'm leaning towards not doing that, so we're really close from a technical point of view.

So at this point we're getting close to seeing the seemingly endless name discussion drive our beta release date.

Therefore ... closure is needed, folks!

Collapse
Posted by C. R. Oldham on
Go with it, Don.  We need a beta.
Collapse
Posted by Ken Kennedy on
Nobody asked for a change so I assume people were either happy with it, or not unhappy enough to ask for a different approach.

I hear ya, Don. To be honest, though...I only noticed the poll from the homepage. I didn't bother to go looking for the threads of discussion, so I didn't have all the context. That was me being lazy, though. And yeah, I just picked the one that was "close enough" for me...polls are never precisely what you want, you know.

I'm definitely in the "not unhappy enough to ask for a different approach" pile, even now. I say go with OpenACS/Open Architecture Community System. Closure is important, and beta even more so. And thanks for going "above and beyond" in an attempt to get community consensus.

Collapse
Posted by Don Baccus on
OK ... I'm going to give Roberto, Vinod et al a "heads up" to get ready to edit docs quickly and look towards rolling a beta over the weekend if they agree.

So folks have a couple more days to bitch about process if they want!  :)

Collapse
Posted by Jun Yamog on
I go with OpenACS than OACS.

OpenACS has been there so lets stick with it.  OACS is something new and it could be pronounced differently.  OpenACS seems to be longer but straightforward.

OpenACS =)  Besides OACS will give additional burden to Vinod and Roberto on renaming the term in the docs. hehehehe.