Re: Zope3 name

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, seb bacon wrote:

> > Hmm.  That's a characterization i often connect with the worst kind of
> > advertising/marketing missteps.  I don't think or mean to say that
> > anyone here had the intention to be misleading, but i think it would
> > be.  
> 
> What is your view about OS9 - OSX, or Windows 98 -> ME?  Do you think they
> confuse users?

OS9 -> OSX seems to me to be a bit mysterious, but explicable when you
look at it.  And mnemonic, once you understand.

I think microsoft has created some significant confusion with ME
versus XP versus 2000 versus 98.  Confusion they evidently have been
willing to swallow, and able to swallow because they can saturate the
market with advertising dollars.  It so happens that ME/XP (somewhere
in there) represented the convergence of the NT and 9X lines, and so
required some divergence from previous series names.  Plus, they were
reaping public relations hell for release slippage that the names
broadcast loudly as it occurred.  Quite a different situation.

> > And i think it's a sign that the appearance (name) is being
> > given, just a tad, too much consideration - exceeding consideration
> > for, and losing touch with, the basic technical reality.
> 
> <rant>
> 
> That is really unconstructive.  I could just as easily accuse you of losing
> touch with a basic reality of the non-technical variety. 

How?

I'm saying that putting a completely different, incongruous name on an
interim release will confuse people, technical and non-technical
alike.  I am *not* opposed to putting something explicit in the name
to indicate how it is different from the sequence that it's part of,
but think it is MISGUIDED to use a totally incongruous name when it is
part of the sequence.

I did *not* mean to suggest that you or anyone was losing touch with
the basic technical reality.  I meant to suggest that a name chosen
for its _lack_ of similarity to the names in the sequence where it
participates is "losing touch" with the technical reality - it is
being designed to *mask* information.  That is a dubious proposition,
one that needs to be supported with solid reasons, marketing or
otherwise, and i don't think the reasons are good.

Which brings me to a point about "marketing".  I am **for** good
marketing.  The question is what is *good*.  I happen to be
particularly sympathetic to the need for clear communications, helping
techincal and non-technical people get oriented about what they're
getting.  "Clear" can be a careful judgement call, but it is something
that can be discussed and resolved.

There *are* cases where marketing that obscures the picture serves a
businesses purposes - often at someone elses costs.  Not always, but
usually.  I vehemently question the wisdom of those kinds of tactics,
and it raises Big Red Flags for me when i see something that seems to
be obscuring the issue.

Like i said, "clear" is a judgement call, and those advocating 

                           Zope 2 \
                                   - Zope 3.0
    Zope Configuration Server 1.0 /

may see it as somehow being clarifying.  I Do Not, and think
specifically it is not because it loses mnemonic, orienting clues in
the name.  That is why i suggested being explicit about the backwards
incompatibility, rather than choosing what i see as an arbitrarily
incongurous name for the intermediate release.

> This list is to discuss the non-technical aspects of the migration, including
> community PR, documentation, etc.  Naming is a small but relevant part of the
> bigger picture.  Have you noticed that a lot of the Zope public is getting
> uneasy and confused about Zope3?  Do you care about this?  The unease has
> nothing to do with technical reality, and everything to do with appearance /
> presentation.  What do you suggest, just keep on saying the same things about
> Zope 3x in the hope that people will eventually get it?  Something is going
> wrong  with the presentation here, and I will do my best to come up with some
> solutions.

No, i suggested being more clear about the distinction in the name,
rather than (what i see as) an arbitrarily incongruous one.

> Little things like names matter.  That's why companies spend millions on
> rebranding themselves.  It's not because they are dupes.  It is because, done
> properly, it can add real value.

As i said above, i am particularly interested in clarity - stuff that
helps everyone get oriented according to their concerns.  There may be
some marketing technology that involves using obscurity to improve the
sell (things like commercials that make a brand seem familiar without
realizing the commercial is the only reason you recognize it) - but i
*strongly* expect that we are going to have to deal with the clarity
aspects, and that the effects of esoteric tricks are so relatively far
down in the noise that they're not significant to us.

What i would like to achieve here is that, instead of resorting to
vague appeals to marketing and how us techies don't understand it, we
instead try to justify particular according to how it will clarify the
situation.  Even justification for a catchy brand name can be couched
in terms of recognizabilty (and rebutted according to the way it
obscures useful information that will help people understand the
product:).  There still will be judgement calls, but at least in terms
that can be discussed.

> There is a feeling amongst techies that marketing is in some way dishonest. 
> That is emphatically not what is being proposed here.  We are trying to work
> through ways of communicating the situation in such a way that it will be
> understood.

I don't object to marketing.  I do - and am - objecting to what i see
as harmful loss of clarity being proposed.  Whether or not clarity is
being lost can be debated.  I can't do much about "techies don't
understand marketing, and this is marketing, so you don't know what
you're talking about".  Maybe my view is exaggerated/paranoid, but i'm
increasingly hearing this, or something approaching it.

> Finally, it's not like we're trying to stage some kind of coup.  If
> you're not 

Huh.  I hadn't thought you might be trying to stage some kind of
coup.

Why do you mention that?

Ah - maybe you actually _are_ trying to stage some kind of coup.  Oh
no!-)

:-)

> interested in contributing to the renaming issue, ignore it.  You
> will get your chance to vote on it later on.

Well, actually, i am interested in contributing to the naming issue,
as i've described above.

> </rant>

Ok, i guess i made a mistake when i muttered "losing touch with
technical reality", it sounded like a personal attack.  I really
didn't mean it that way - i'm sorry i wasn't more careful!

-- 
Ken
[email protected]