Zope3 name

There has been a discussion about naming Zope3, which I would like to 
revive.

First (and what got me thinking about it again): was it appropriate to 
call the pre-New-Year-release  an 'alpha'?  On the one hand, I know Jim 
is keen to keep up the momentum among developers.  On the other, it 
suggests (to me) a level of maturity which the product has not yet 
reached, which could damage perceptions from the outside.

OK, I would be happy deploying a Zope3 app *now* for a company which was 
willing to pay a fair amount for ongoing support.

But a number of central parts of the application are either incomplete 
or not yet fixed - for example, APIs, the interfaces implementation, the 
GUI, software packaging, a full catalog implementation.

One reasonable solution to the perception problem still appears to be to 
change the name of Zope 3 now before it is too late.

Reasons:

  - It is entirely unclear that Zope3.0 will be ready before such a time
    that Zope 2.x runs out of minor version numbers and perhaps
    undergoes some major changes itself (what about the proposed
    back-ports of new Z3 functionality?)

  - Zope3 will be so different for developers from 2.7, it seems
    confusing to make it sound like a major point change when it's
    actually a complete rewrite.  People will go out and buy the "Zope
    Book" and find it completely irrelevant.  I would prefer Zope 3000 or
    Zope Component Server, for example.

  - It is increasingly clear to me that ZC and/or the community must work
    out very long-term support and development arrangements for 2.x to
    keep existing customers happy.  Having 3.0 suggests a replacement of
    2.7 to nervous users.  Why not have a name which does not apparently
    preclude parallel development?

I know this will be a very unpopular move among Z3 developers, but I 
would like to have the opportunity to argue the point in detail before I 
give up on it!

seb