On 9/4/2007 3:02 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> There is no point in even talking further about changing the name of the
> project if we don't have the resources to do the change. There's
> particularly no point in doing a survey of people's uninformed opinions
> about the issue; community members need to see a cost-benefit analysis
> *first,* not after a vote.
While I 100% agree that further discussion or polls or votes or anything
are pointless until we have a reasonably detailed plan, I totally doubt
that it can contain something even remotely resembling a cost-benefit
analysis. Sure, one can estimate the cost and outline the "expected"
benefits, but cost is expressed in man hours while the benefits of a
name change are speculative expressed in name branding, recognition, all
the things associated with a nice name. And you can't really put a price
tag on that, so that analysis would be apples to elephants comparison.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #