This conversation has been done to death. No one is going to change their mind at this point, we should just vote. If anyone is curious please continue through the archives I linked to rather than restarting the discussion. On 17 December 2012 19:24, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Bianca Gibson wrote:
On 17 December 2012 14:28, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com <mailto:lev@levlafayette.com>> wrote:
Although a name change does *imply* a change of focus of the organisation, that it will become "Free, Libre, Open Source" technology organisation, rather than a Linux organisation.
It does not imply a change of focus from what we are now (imo). It is intended to bring our name in line with what we currently do. More details: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2012-April/019454.html /begin rant Personally I think changing names of organisations ( commercial and non-commercial); to better describe function or simple novelty as often seems the case; involves a miss-understanding of the function of names ! The function of the name is not essentially to describe the function of the organisation, but to uniquely represent the organisation. All that such badge-engineering does is obscure identification. Even advertisers recognise the commercial value of brand recognition ! /end rant regards Rohan McLeod
luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk