[sr-dev] git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router

[Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul]

On Jun 24, 2009 at 17:14, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/24/2009 04:50 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> >Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> >
> > > I would prefer to stick and keep the name as "sip express router" 
> > rather > than dry "sip router" -- it makes an unique identifier for the
> > > project.
> >
> >"sip express router" gives message that the project is just a new
> >version of ser and does not recognize the work done by lot of people on
> >openser and kamailio.  if you want a unique identifier, invent a new
> >one.
> >  
> I am not eager to find a new one, there is no pressure to release entire 
> project from sip-router.org git repository under new identity, so I was 
> happy with using ser so far and no others complained. SER can be from 
> "sip extensible router" or something else in the middle starting with "E".
> 
> Regarding the relevance of contributions based on project name, you have 
> a lot if work done in ser as well, from before the openser fork. Many 
> others have as well and sip router as name does not suggest/recognize 
> better the work of people from different project.
> 
> While sip router is ok to preserve in a way or other in the name, there 
> is need for something like a middle name so one can quickly match this 
> project.
> 
> When talking with people about sip router, the first project coming in 
> their mind is ser, then is kamailio (openser) (and maybe others), 
> explaining the existence of a third one named exactly "sip router" is 
> kind of awkward and very confusing.


Unfortunately this discussion seems to de-generate in a long thread and
honestly I don't think it would be useful. The only result I see is
time lost, time that could go into development, testing or docs.
The problem is that for something as simple as a short-name everybody
has a very strong opinion and there are very few objective criteria to
filter through the proposals.
I think the only constructive way to go forward is to find a commonly
accepted procedure for choosing a name (maybe keep a list of proposals,
that should satisfy a few criterias and then at some point have a vote,
either over the net or during a public meeting).
We could also delay this to some undefined future point :-)

For the record I do partially agree with Daniel. I do not want a new
"trademark" for the project, but I think we need a short name, something
only a few letter long. sr would be great, but unfortunately is too
common. ser would work for me too (I guess this is no surprise), but I
understand that some people might not want it.


Andrei