Personally, I enjoy Latin-related names, but it ultimately comes down to a decision by the OpenACS gatekeepers/junta to decide what the corporate identity slant of this open source project is to be.
Only when that decision is made will it be feasible to propose project names.
Huh? No, it is really up to the community. We need to figure out some way to reach a decision since clearly not everyone agrees with every name proposal. A truly outstanding name suggestion will probably result in an obvious consensus, though, and if that become true the process for reaching a decision will have defined itself.
One thing worth pointing out, though. Retention of our current logo and URL by doing a simple switch from "ArsDigita" to "Architecture" is appealing because experience shows that renaming and rebranding is an expensive proposition. Going to a name like "Pueblo" (which I still like) would require a lot of ongoing explanation - "oh, it's the new name for OpenACS" - and we don't really have many resources (only volunteers) to publicize a name change.
I have personal business experience of trying to do a name change and it wasn't a very pleasant one. It just confuses customers. We had no choice in the matter, for reasons similar to those raised here, actually, and based the new name on the old. But the old name was was easy to turn into an acronym ("OMSI") while the new one wasn't. Bad idea.
So maybe plain-old "OACS" pronounced "Oaks", while boring and prosaic, would be the easiest thing to pull off.
Could we get away with releasing "OACS 1.0" ? I think changing the version number will do as much as anything else to emphasize that we're not going to be issuing a Postgres port of ACS 4.6 (Java) on our fourth minor-version number release.
