Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to Take the first poll on the OpenACS 4 naming issue!

First off, hope its ok to post up here as well as vote? 😉

Ok, basically I'm in favour of the final option, i.e. come up with new branding/naming completely and to give this issue more thought. I noticed that currently the poll is swinging entirely the other way, so if you'll forgive me I thought I'd do a little 'soapboxing'.

Why Lose the Original Name (OpenACS)?

I persoanlly don't find it all that catchy/expressive, minor point I know, but got to mention it 😊

Although its important to give credit to the ArsDigita people, the name itself is inherently intertwined with that company, which is both confusing when trying to relate the product to potential customers, and also makes the product sound company specific i.e. it doesn't give the impression that it is now a genuinely community driven project.

With ArsDigita disappearing as a commercial entity that therefore carries some negative imagery with it. After all if the company has gone bump, what would a potential customer infer when thinking about the merit of the product?

The name itself focusses on the collaborative aspect of the product. This is fine, but many people push the use of the product for different reasons. As it turns out the OpenACS is an excellent basis on which to construct mobile applications and we use it for that purpose. I would therefore like to see a name that is more general and encapsulates what we do with it.

Why Is a New Name/Brand Important?

In the first instance, to help this project gain wider acceptance/publicity a strong identifiable, communicable brand is important.

Given that many companies, organisation and individuals use the product as part of their business (mine included), and that these represent a very diverse set of applications, its seems to makes sense to look for an identity which is extremely neutral in its description.

Re-branding, and renaming are difficult to do, and in particular its not often that there's a good time to do it. With the upgrade to OpenACS 4 and the recent demise of AD, its a golden opportunity to review. If the name remains unexamined at this point, it will be much more difficult down the line as the popularity for it grows.

From a completely biased and commercial perspective, I don't personally feel all that the current branding is strong enough. It would help us immensely if a better brand could be acheived as its an important element in articulating the product to the customer.

Over the past months, I have watched in amazement at the contuined, quality development effort that has been pumped into OpenACS. I feel that, sufficient has been acheived that the contributors deserve an identitiy to represent their efforts in bringing this product to this point. A identity becomes closely associated with the effort now and that which will be put-in in the future.

There are now more and more quality open source projects on the web. JBoss or Jakarta and so forth. If OpenACS is going to rival and persuade people its a viable (and better in my opinion) alternative, as it should, the it also need a strong identity to help raise its profile.

Ok, well thats a few thoughts I have. I realise perhaps it sounds something of a fuss over nothing, but from experience, a strong brand doesn't create better software or more users, but a less strong one can hamper your efforts to get the profile deserved.

And before anyone asks... no, I don't have a better suggestion yet... but I'd look forward to being part of thinking up a new one 😉

Simon