<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">If I may pitch in on the Googleability question. Fewer and fewer people today search by a single word or acronym. Openframework returns a lot of non-OFA hits. 'what does the openframework working group do' returns hits to us, as does 'what is the ofa ofwg'. 'what is ofwg' returns a lot of hits to </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:15.600000381469727px">Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All, whatever that is. Google is scary in its sophistication of searching very specific questions. There are questions I don't want to ask Google. I don't want to know what it might know. We are surprisingly returning a lot of hits with openframework working group and ofa ofwg, considering we don't have any direct/specific web presence on the web site. </span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="line-height:15.600000381469727px"><br></span></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="line-height:15.600000381469727px">Brian is now off the list.</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Doug Ledford <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dledford@redhat.com" target="_blank">dledford@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 1/30/2014 12:58 PM, Paul Grun wrote:<br>
> Look, the objective here started out as a way to increase our<br>
> visibility on Google.<br>
><br>
> My personal opinion is much different than Doug's in a number of<br>
> respects.<br>
<br>
</div>I get that a lot ;-)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> I do not think that anything we do should be tied to the<br>
> underlying interconnect e.g. RDMA. I do think that the major thrust<br>
> of what we are doing is creating a framework that supports a set of<br>
> composable APIs that provide applications with access to a set of I/O<br>
> services.<br>
><br>
> To me, the focus is still, and should remain, on the framework part<br>
> of it because that is the unique thing we're doing. To be specific,<br>
> the key insight, at least as I see it, is that there is no single API<br>
> to rule them all, but rather a set of composable APIs and that<br>
> requires a framework to make it work. That's what makes the work we<br>
> are doing unique.<br>
<br>
</div>But even a framework of composable APIs is still an API itself. This<br>
may be a unique API with some distinctive characteristics that makes it<br>
somewhat special, but it's still an API.<br>
<br>
I'll also say that maybe RDMA is the wrong phrase for me to use here<br>
(although it's the most widely recognized generic term for what I am<br>
referring to). RDMA has long been an umbrella for the more generic<br>
concept of "network I/O that does not need kernel direction and instead<br>
goes directly to the correct user space process memory space". It has<br>
been *implemented* via the verbs RDMA API, but even that API is only<br>
part RDMA and part send/recv. What I'm really referring to is the user<br>
space process direct nature of the underlying interconnect. So in as<br>
much as RDMA has been overloaded to cover all of that, I was using it in<br>
that fashion, but I could also see a more correct name (which doesn't<br>
yet exist I don't think).<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> As far as "fabrics" go, the name of our parent organization, for<br>
> better or for worse, is the OpenFabrics Alliance. I don't see us<br>
> changing that. Nor do I read that as implying that we (the OFA) are<br>
> defining the fabrics themselves; that has never been the charter of<br>
> the OFA.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, but it does not follow that because the organization is named<br>
OpenFabrics Alliance that then everything the organization works on must<br>
also be named *something*fabrics*something* or<br>
*something*open*something*. It is entirely legitimate for the<br>
OpenFabrics Alliance to work on whatever it determines is germane to its<br>
goals, and IMO it is entirely sufficient for the OpenFabrics Alliance<br>
portion of the name to carry the brand while the rest carries the<br>
project intent.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Our current name is OpenFramework Working Group. Someone pointed out<br>
> that that does not google well. But there is a fine line to be<br>
> walked here - let's not give ourselves a name that is so obscure that<br>
> nobody knows how to google for us at all. A completely unique name<br>
> is of no use at all if no one searches for it.<br>
<br>
</div>On this point I agree with Jeff: the name need not be known to be good.<br>
It will become known as the work is done. No one accidentally stumbles<br>
onto OFED or OFA EWG, they get there because they know generally what<br>
they are aiming for and they googled it to get the exact address. This<br>
group will have its work known in the same way and be found in the same<br>
way. Obscurity at the outset is not really a concern IMO.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> So I suggest we stick pretty close to home and go with OFA Framework<br>
> Working Group - OFWG.<br>
><br>
> Any objections? -Paul<br>
<br>
</div>This goes right back to the original point of the entire thread: that<br>
particular moniker is not unique and the googleability will be<br>
compromised. So if we are concerned about solving the googleability<br>
issue, then this moniker fails whether we want it to or not. If we just<br>
want to stick with the moniker because it tickles our fancy and not<br>
worry about googleability, then that's a valid choice too.<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Openframeworkwg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openframeworkwg@lists.openfabrics.org">Openframeworkwg@lists.openfabrics.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openframeworkwg" target="_blank">http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openframeworkwg</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><br><div><br></div><div><b><font size="4">Ken Strandberg</font></b></div><div><font size="4"><i>Webmanager/SysAdmin</i></font></div><div><i><b>OpenFabrics Alliance</b></i></div>
<div><a href="mailto:kens@openfabrics.org" target="_blank">kens@openfabrics.org</a></div><div><a href="http://www.openfabrics.org" target="_blank">www.openfabrics.org</a></div>
</div>