See also AtomTrademarkConflicts, JustUseAtom
-
Atom
-
[+1] [JasonShellen]
-
[+1] [SamRuby]
-
[+1] [BillKearney]
-
[+1] [CameronMarlow]
-
[+1] [JohnWehr]
-
[+1] [AnilDash]
-
[+1] [MegHourihan]
-
[+1] [JoeGregorio]
-
[+1] [BruceLoebrich]
-
[+1] [RogersCadenhead]
-
[+1] [JoiIto]
-
[+1] [TimBray], It's good enough, let's pick it and move on
-
Why should "good enough" be good enough? Whaddya say let's hold out for fantastic?
-
If fantastic comes along we can change again. Move on folks, nothing to see here. [NickChalko]
-
Really? The whiplash from Echo still hurts.
-
[+1] [AdriaanTijsseling] Whatever... let's just get this naming thing over with.
-
[+1] [DeveloperDude] Forcing consensus.
-
[+1] [BradWilson]
-
[+1] [Anne van Kesteren]
-
NO, no, no. Atom, if it only meant "elemental", is a great name for Echo. But associations with "nuclear" will obviously crop up in product names and headlines etc. - thus associations with the fear of attacks and disasters past and future. I cringe that this "critical mass" is coming together so quickly. Or we could just learn to love the bomb and rename Echo Apocalypse. No better Holocaust. Anyone present from Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Ukraine? Belarus?
-
[-1] [SeanPalmer] No; please don't. Atom has scientific connotations, whereas we must emphasize the social aspect of the format. Being singular, Atom robs the mind's eye of the profusion of people's ideas that our format will propogate. Atom cannot be used as a verb. Atom is not clever, and there is no mnemonic for it. I humbly suggest its proponents reconsider.
-
Disagree. The "social aspect" is enhanced by picking a name that's not an acronym or made up. The fact that it's not clever and isn't literal are positives, not negatives. And I think the verbing necessity is a red herring. Airport, WiFi, Bluetooth, and the few other really good names for evangelizing technology aren't verbs, either, they're evocative names that were defined by their applications. Plus, there is a value in evoking posts as the atomic elements of journals and blogs, which is an idea that's independently arisen almost everywhere that people are reading and writing them. [AnilDash]
-
WiFi could be used as a verb, Bluetooth is at least distinct. Airport is not an evocative name. Necho, and Spark, and Sygnal aren't acronyms either; whyn't pick them? TimBray's argument of "good enough; pick it" could just as easily be applied to them. Atom will have a longer pick-up time to becoming evocative than WiFi and Bluetooth have done, or Echo could've and Necho, Spark and Sygnal etc. still can. I feel like I'm fighting the tides here, but this name is bad even when compared to the other current proposals. I need a better argument than what I've read so far to be convinced. [SeanPalmer]
-
[TomasJogin] Sean made me change my mind, I withdraw my vote.
-
Could easily be confused with Atomz search.
-
[-1] Disagree. When used in context there is definitely no cause for concern. 'Atom API' and 'Atom Enabled' would be probable uses. [JasonShellen]
-
Possible conflicts:
-
HP's (defunct) ATOM API (same as this reference, this one, and this one) hasn't had an update in 5+ years and is for the discontinued DEC/Compaq Alpha architecture. Seems like a non-conflict. [AnilDash]
-
Java: Atom Class, though this is used for science with *actual* atoms.
-
[+1] [DavidCzarnecki] Guess we committed our echoapi package to CVS too soon No matter, simple rename.
-
[-1] [TristanLouis] Disagree - Possible Conflict: One of the worries I haev is that it may be too close to AtomZ and could create some confusion.
-
[+1] [ShelleyPowers] Not my favorite (even Pubs is no longer my favorite), but at this time, it's as good as any, doesn't reflect on Echo, and most people seem to like it. Let's name this puppy and move on.
-
[ShelleyPowers] And just think of the variations -- we'll have an Atomic API, an Atomic feed, a Nuclear wiki, Explosive discussions....
-
[-1] [GeorgBauer] Yeah, and if we foul up, we have nuclear waste and all those negative comments on our work is just fallout - no, sorry, but Atom has a very negative touch around here
-
[+1] [ChrisWilper] Sure, this is fine. +1 to moving on, also.
-
[+1] [StanFinley] Forward...
-
[-1] [RolandWeigelt] Hmm... Asked several colleagues (developers), all expressed negative feelings. Could be a German problem, because of the use of "Atom-" as a prefix like "nuclear". E.g. a transport of nuclear material is a "Atom-Transport" (usually accompanied by demonstrations), switch on TV and hear about yet another "Atom-Skandal" (scandal) -- I don't think "Atom" is a cool name. BTW in German, "Atom" is kind of slow to speak (long "o").
-
[+1] [KarlDubost] Atom can be even derived in french. Atom. "J'ai atomisé mon carnet Web" which could mean I have destroyed my weblog.
-
[+1] [MichaelPate] Atomic Batteries to Power - Turbines to Speed
-
[0] [MarkCidade] +1 for naming and moving on before Pie or Echo become more entrenched. -1 because Atom has a homonym ("Adam?" "No, Ah-TUM" "Oh, like an atom bomb?" "Uh, yeah...")
-
[0] [StevenGarrity] The homonym thing is significant. Already today, I told someone about it and had to spell it (I said "Atom", they heard "Adam"). Other than that I like it - and at least it's written down more than said allowed.
-
[-1] [ZhangYining] Doesn't sound cool, maybe powerful. Too associated with Atomic bomb, etc.
-
[NickChalko RefactorOk] How would AtomNameUsage work.
-
[-1] Picking a totally arbitrary name just to move on I think is a mistake. The name doesn't evoke any description of the purpose (not that this is a requirement, but still I certainly don't think blog when I hear ATOM). I also told three people today about the possible name and they thought I said ADAM. Name clash ATOMZ, ATOM Films. Possible trademark problems... [CJR]
-
[-1] [Skware] I personally don't like it because it doesn't easily lend itself to verbalizing. (I'm blogging this doesn't easily become I'm atomming this or I'm atomizing this without sounding mega geeky).
-
[-1] [JonDavis RefactorOk] NO! Absolutely not. Atom is geeky and lame; memories of those molecular structure models made of wood in seventh grade science class are flashing in my head... Yuck, why not throw in a chalkboard in the science lab and scrape your fingernails all over it? At least with Echo we had a name that had a fundamental meaning that directly reflected what it was we were seeking to accomplish. Stick to that mindset, and then I'll vote yes. Till then, "Atom" means nothing to me.
-
[JeremyGray] I would much prefer to see a name like Spark, Wyre, Sygnal (or even Echo, had it not been for the conflict) win over Atom, but the wiki community seems to have spoken very clearly on the subject. Atom obviously means something to a good number of people, and, if presented professionally, would be hardly geeky or lame. Having said that, you are most certainly entitled to your opinions, but if you feel as strongly as you do about Atom, perhaps you should work on detailing AtomTrademarkConflicts, as that is likely all that can stop Atom now.
-
[TomasJogin] That's true, assuming that all these people like the specific name Atom and don't just want to "get this over with" which doesn't make this specific name the least bit better, but rather the opposite. I haven't counted specifics, but more people seem to dislike Atom than any other name, too.
-
[JeremyGray] True, there are certainly a good number of people who want to "get this over with", I won't deny that. However, those who don't like Atom need to rally strongly enough around an alternative ("spark", perhaps ), otherwise they are just making a lot of noise and doing very little about what they perceive to be a problem, that being Atom's rise to popularity.
-
[TomasJogin] Great idea, so why don't everybody who don't like "Atom" all vote on the same name, just so we can bury this bad idea before it roots itself. I've voted for Sygnal, unfortunately that's about all I can do too. What about the rest of you? Place your vote on a name on the ProjectNamesTopVotesSoFar list, do it now!
-
[JeremyGray] Hehe. I guess now we'll see just how many people really are or aren't opposed to Atom.
-
[JonDavis] "...the wiki community seems to have spoken very clearly on the subject.." I respectfully disagree. I stepped out over the weekend and for a couple additional days and next thing I new I came back and Atom popped up and had "taken over". That's hardly a fair trial for a whole project name, especially when so much time and energy has gone into other names (like Echo, etc). Those who want Atom seem to want it only for the impatience, which isn't fair to those of us who want to see a meaningful name emerge.
-
[JeremyGray] I too have stepped away from this wiki for a day or two and come back with an initial thought of "aww crap" with regards to changes that I had to catch up with. This is the nature of the wiki, I guess, for better or worse. I too also want to see a meaningful name emerge, but I am just one of many contributors on this wiki, hence, for example, my effort over on AtomArtwork - if we're going to go with Atom, I at least want to make sure its presented professionally. That 'Atom popped up and had "taken over"' while you were absent won't really sway anyone, nor should it. Echo, as a name, had way less time and energy go into it than has gone into ProjectNameProposals since Echo was eliminated, and that effort should be respected. Echo didn't really evolve out of this page as it exists today or even recently. Atom evolved out of this page like any other name could have but didn't. Atom joined the general list at least 5 days ago (revision history doesn't seem to go back far enough to be sure) and joined ProjectNamesTopVotesSoFar with 2 votes on the 14th. It has risen to the top over 4 days, ages by this wiki's standards, with plenty of time for detractors to cut it down with AtomTrademarkConflicts and/or rallies around other candidates. That they didn't is only an indicator that they appear to be part of a vocally growing but numerically shrinking minority. Everyone actively taking part in this process should fully expect to be in the minority on more than one issue. I'm not sure, however, that everyone understands this. Once they do, the only remaining question will be this: does the wiki run on majority or consensus? The answer has been stated as consensus on at least one occasion, but consensus may well prove impossible with a group this large and varied (especially when the group membership is itself unknown and unbounded, eliminating any possibility of TrueConsensus). I don't mind it going either way, I'd just like to know which one we're actually shooting for.
-
[JonDavis] Echo didn't really evolve out of this page as it exists today or even recently. Atom evolved out of this page like any other name could have but didn't. Clearly, you are supportive of letting the process work this out. Great. I think we're in agreement then. What I cannot vote for is such proposals at the top of the page as, "Let's just go with Atom and be done with this process," when other names are still being proposed and considered. I don't even mind using Atom tentatively while the process works itself out. But you said yourself that you, too, dropped out for a couple days as I did and came back with an "ah crap" disappointment to see Atom, and it all goes to show that all contributors need time to sync up and I don't think it's appropriate to let a bunch of impatient people hack some name together without giving everything its due diligence.
-
[JeremyGray] re: supportive of the process - yup, and that's why I voted for starting with an evaluation of the naming guidelines. I feel that if we can agree on the type of name we're looking for we can greatly simplify the search and cut down on a lot of noise, which would help proponents and opponents focus their efforts. (It wasn't Atom that I missed - I was just explaining that there have been things I have missed over weekends and such.)
-
[-1] [AsbjornUlsberg] I don't like it. I just don't.
There seems to be gneeral agreement on the name Atom. Not true. 20 of 90+ votes cast.
Let's declare victory and move on to more important things. The name is important. We don't want another failed one.
-
There is no consensus and wiki mob tactics won't help. Why not have a final vote rather than force consenus via edits or the day to day fluid movement of the wiki? - Everyone doesn't visit everyday.
But what about the AtomTrademarkConflicts discussion? Atom has worse trademark problems than Echo. Echo was stopped by one open source project that hadn't even finished its legal work. Atom may be stopped by any of a dozen current US trademark holders.
Arguments to sticking with Atom:
-
We need to decide eventually; we have general agreement on this name.
-
Except, we don't.
Arguments against using Atom:
-
The format is really broadly applicable, and could overlap with lots of trademarks.
-
A single letter from a trademark holder could screw everything up.
-
In the mode of "We'll make a proposal and if enough people agree and there's no major disagreements, we'll go forward", there is definitely "major disagreement".
Proposal Just use Atom
-
Agree
-
[GaryF]
-
[AdriaanTijsseling] Yes, use Atom and let's finally move on. The naming process has gone on too long already. "get move on"
-
[NeilTurner] It's good enough. Spending ages choosing a name is waste of time, in my opinion.
-
[JoeMadia]
-
[AaronSw]
-
Disagree: Vote some other way
-
[Skware]
-
[RolandWeigelt] We should not ignore AtomCausesNegativeFeelings.
-
[PhilWolff] So is the full name Atom Smashing Syndication? [Please refactor this]
-
[DimitrisPanagiotakis, RefactorOk] I think Atom is a bit out of context. It wasn't easy to figure out what RSS was when I first encountered it (people don't agree on what the acronym stands for). "Atom" doesn't make this easy either, strictly speaking, it may also be misleading. I wonder, would so many people rush to agree unless people like MarkPilgrim or SamRuby cast their positive vote? http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1518.html Oh well, this could go on forever, so why not have a final vote and no regrets later?
-
[CJR]
-
[JonDavis]
-
[JonathanSmith] The desire to move forward is understandable; unfortunately, those who pushed the name, Atom, forward could have given some more thought to what they chose before they started the push.
-
[Cybarber] I think the name should be only three letters like S(yndication) A(ggregation) M(arkup) SAM or PIE, etc. That way we can use it economically as namespace prefix <sam:feed> <sam:entry> and use it as a filename extention (or can we only use .xml?): mydaily.sam.
-
[CarlGarland] While moving on would be great I think Atom fails too many aspects of the guidelines.