While I understand the author’s frustration with the developers not giving as much weight to the (non-contributing) community, the fact is that the developers get to make the final call on this, and they get to use whatever criteria they like.
And there’s no definitive answer to whether a name change would be a net positive or negative–a handful of complaints vs brand dilution is a subjective call. And for the number of users, I get the impression that it’s not as big of a deal to most people as it is to the author.
Right, ultimately it’s their project and they can do what they want, but it’s also their loss every time some person or organization skips it because of the name.
I agree with this, but in open source there’s an extra layer of complexity: the “I don’t care about market share” dev attitude that’s sometimes admirable and sometimes frustrating.
While I understand the author’s frustration with the developers not giving as much weight to the (non-contributing) community, the fact is that the developers get to make the final call on this, and they get to use whatever criteria they like.
And there’s no definitive answer to whether a name change would be a net positive or negative–a handful of complaints vs brand dilution is a subjective call. And for the number of users, I get the impression that it’s not as big of a deal to most people as it is to the author.
Right, ultimately it’s their project and they can do what they want, but it’s also their loss every time some person or organization skips it because of the name.
I agree with this, but in open source there’s an extra layer of complexity: the “I don’t care about market share” dev attitude that’s sometimes admirable and sometimes frustrating.