Hj Jeff,
<br>
<br>Okay - I'd like to restate my position. :-)
<br>
<br>I think you're right - having different names for each release (Zope 3.2 = Blah, Zope 3.3 = Foo) *is* a bad idea, it creates confusion, especially in a framework with frequent releases. So -1 on that from me from now on. :)
<br>
<br>However...
<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid #666666; border-top: 1px solid #eeeeee; margin: 15px 20px;">
<div style="color: #333333; font: bold 11px tahoma,geneva,helvetica,arial,sans-serif; padding: 5px 10px;">Jeff Shell wrote:</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font: 11px tahoma,geneva,helvetica,arial,sans-serif; padding: 5px 10px;">Beyond that, I think that 'Zope 3' is a good looking set of characters
<br>and can be a strong brand in and of itself. Just always, always,
<br>always refer to it as Zope 3. It doesn't need to be Zope on Zydeco or
<br>something like that. 'Zope 3' has a lot of strong brand potential.
<br>It's crisp, it's clear, it builds on something established yet can
<br>differentiate itself from it.
<br>
<br>> The secondary brand name (the Zomething in my example above) was the
<br>> original example - and I personally think this is a good idea, just to
<br>> give the clear message that this is distinct but building on Zope 2.
<br>
<br>Zope 2 is seldom referred to as Zope 2. Zope 2.x maybe, but I seldom
<br>notice it referred to as Zope 2, except now that Zope 3 is on the
<br>scene. By just adding emphasis to the 3, and it doesn't even need to
<br>be a strong emphasis, I think we can capture a lot.
<br>
<br>A fancy name isn't going to give the message that this is distinct,
<br>especially if the experience of finding out what Zope 3 is and how to
<br>use it starts bringing back painful memories of prior Zopes, or starts
<br>to mirror the stories people have heard about Zope - "yeah, it's great
<br>if you can figure it out... good luck figuring it out..."
</div>
</blockquote>
if you don't mind me using your argumentation to argue my point:
<br>
<br>There are a lot of people out there, it seems, that hate Zope. Maybe they hate Zope 2, maybe they even tried Zope 3.0 and got burnt. Somehow, it just seems it's got some bad stigma around it (e.g. look at the average flaming reply to a blog posting about Zope 3). Now, for those people, putting a new name in their heads may be a good way of suggesting that indeed, there is something new and something better here. It's not just the same old Zope with a few more bells and whistles, it's something entirely different. It deserves a second look.
<br>
<br>As Stephan pointed out, denying the Zope legacy is denying the work of those who took it from Zope 2 to Zope 3, and denying that we've learnt a lot of lessons from Zope 2.
<br>
<br>Which is why, in my reading, the original proposal for all this was to include all of them: The Zope, the 3 and the new name. And with that, as you identify, some more branding, in terms of resources, in terms of a clear, concise message and tag line, in terms of a good logo that people recognise, and in terms of an outward-facing orientation.
<br>
<br>That name should stay the same, across releases!
<br>
<br>Let's say we adopted the brand "Zope 3 Singularity", zope3singularity.org, a slogan ("Zope 3 Singularity - Be Adaptive), a logo, a colour scheme, a web site that's simple and on-message.... and a download box that says: Download version 3.2. When version 3.3 comes out, you'd say - NEW! Version 3.3, now with these cool new features, click here to see them in action. The brand stays "Zope 3 Singularity", though. The message stays. The logo stays. And for new adopter that raves about Z3 Singularity being the best thing since sliced bread, people will take note that it's something new, not just the same dreary Zope (2) they tried before.
<br>
<br>So why the name, why not just "Zope 3"? You say that for Zope 3 to become a strong brand, people should "Just always, always, always refer to it as Zope 3". What about the ones who didn't get the memo? What about J. Random Blogger who goes on and rants or raves about "the latest version of Zope", forgetting the 3 and people either ignore him as a Zope Zealot (heh) with his head in the sand, or start arguing vigorously against him because they used Zope once in 1998 and didn't like it.
<br>
<br>As you said - this isn't easy. We need to be opinionated, proud, clear on our message. We need to take marketing seriously, because at the moment, a beautiful framework is obscured by an awful web site and an absent brand.
<br>
<br>Martin
<br><hr align="left" width="300">
View this message in context: <a href="http://www.nabble.com/Selecting-a-code-name-t1063275.html#a2798918">Re: Re: Selecting a code name</a><br>
Sent from the <a href="http://www.nabble.com/Zope3---dev-f6731.html">Zope3 - dev</a> forum at Nabble.com.