[Openframeworkwg] Googleable names

[Ken Strandberg]

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 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.

Brian is now off the list.


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 1/30/2014 12:58 PM, Paul Grun wrote:
> > Look, the objective here started out as a way to increase our
> > visibility on Google.
> >
> > My personal opinion is much different than Doug's in a number of
> > respects.
>
> I get that a lot ;-)
>
> >  I do not think that anything we do should be tied to the
> > underlying interconnect e.g. RDMA.  I do think that the major thrust
> > of what we are doing is creating a framework that supports a set of
> > composable APIs that provide applications with access to a set of I/O
> > services.
> >
> > To me, the focus is still, and should remain, on the framework part
> > of it because that is the unique thing we're doing.  To be specific,
> > the key insight, at least as I see it, is that there is no single API
> > to rule them all, but rather a set of composable APIs and that
> > requires a framework to make it work.  That's what makes the work we
> > are doing unique.
>
> But even a framework of composable APIs is still an API itself.  This
> may be a unique API with some distinctive characteristics that makes it
> somewhat special, but it's still an API.
>
> I'll also say that maybe RDMA is the wrong phrase for me to use here
> (although it's the most widely recognized generic term for what I am
> referring to).  RDMA has long been an umbrella for the more generic
> concept of "network I/O that does not need kernel direction and instead
> goes directly to the correct user space process memory space".  It has
> been *implemented* via the verbs RDMA API, but even that API is only
> part RDMA and part send/recv.  What I'm really referring to is the user
> space process direct nature of the underlying interconnect.  So in as
> much as RDMA has been overloaded to cover all of that, I was using it in
> that fashion, but I could also see a more correct name (which doesn't
> yet exist I don't think).
>
> > As far as "fabrics" go, the name of our parent organization, for
> > better or for worse, is the OpenFabrics Alliance.  I don't see us
> > changing that.  Nor do I read that as implying that we (the OFA) are
> > defining the fabrics themselves; that has never been the charter of
> > the OFA.
>
> Yes, but it does not follow that because the organization is named
> OpenFabrics Alliance that then everything the organization works on must
> also be named *something*fabrics*something* or
> *something*open*something*.  It is entirely legitimate for the
> OpenFabrics Alliance to work on whatever it determines is germane to its
> goals, and IMO it is entirely sufficient for the OpenFabrics Alliance
> portion of the name to carry the brand while the rest carries the
> project intent.
>
> > Our current name is OpenFramework Working Group.  Someone pointed out
> > that that does not google well.  But there is a fine line to be
> > walked here - let's not give ourselves a name that is so obscure that
> > nobody knows how to google for us at all.  A completely unique name
> > is of no use at all if no one searches for it.
>
> On this point I agree with Jeff: the name need not be known to be good.
>  It will become known as the work is done.  No one accidentally stumbles
> onto OFED or OFA EWG, they get there because they know generally what
> they are aiming for and they googled it to get the exact address.  This
> group will have its work known in the same way and be found in the same
> way.  Obscurity at the outset is not really a concern IMO.
>
> > So I suggest we stick pretty close to home and go with OFA Framework
> > Working Group - OFWG.
> >
> > Any objections? -Paul
>
> This goes right back to the original point of the entire thread: that
> particular moniker is not unique and the googleability will be
> compromised.  So if we are concerned about solving the googleability
> issue, then this moniker fails whether we want it to or not.  If we just
> want to stick with the moniker because it tickles our fancy and not
> worry about googleability, then that's a valid choice too.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openframeworkwg mailing list
> Openframeworkwg at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openframeworkwg
>
>


-- 


*Ken Strandberg*
*Webmanager/SysAdmin*
*OpenFabrics Alliance*
kens at openfabrics.org
www.openfabrics.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofiwg/attachments/20140130/4817223e/attachment.html>