Difference between revisions of "Rebranding 2024-03-07"
(Created page with "Attendees: We have been discussing having VTK-m join the High Performance Software Foundation (HPSF), which is an umbrella organization under the Linux Foundation (LF). To jo...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Attendees: | + | Attendees: Ken Moreland (ORNL), Ollie Lo (LANL), Berk Geveci (Kitware), Mark Bolstad (SNL), Dave Pugmire (ORNL), Hank Childs (UO) |
We have been discussing having VTK-m join the High Performance Software Foundation (HPSF), which is an umbrella organization under the Linux Foundation (LF). To join the HPSF, VTK-m has to join the LF. We have hit a snag in that the LF must own the trademark to any member software. That is a problem for VTK-m because the name is too similar to VTK, and the trademarks would violate each other. | We have been discussing having VTK-m join the High Performance Software Foundation (HPSF), which is an umbrella organization under the Linux Foundation (LF). To join the HPSF, VTK-m has to join the LF. We have hit a snag in that the LF must own the trademark to any member software. That is a problem for VTK-m because the name is too similar to VTK, and the trademarks would violate each other. | ||
So far, the only solution we have found around this problem would be to rebrand VTK-m. If we created a unique name, then there would be no trademark issue. The problem is that VTK-m already has a significant amount of brand recognition. Can we transition to a new brand without ruining that? Also, how could we move forward without disrupting current users and developers? And if this can all be resolved, what should the new name be? | So far, the only solution we have found around this problem would be to rebrand VTK-m. If we created a unique name, then there would be no trademark issue. The problem is that VTK-m already has a significant amount of brand recognition. Can we transition to a new brand without ruining that? Also, how could we move forward without disrupting current users and developers? And if this can all be resolved, what should the new name be? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Berk suggests that we can have two separate names at once. They could even be in separate repositories. One would be VTK-m and the other would be the name for the LF, but the software would be the same. This could be done indefinitely until we are ready to actually make the shift. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We would start by creating a new repository that mirrors VTK-m (or vice versa). It would still have `vtkm` throughout the code, but the name of the repository would be different. After joining, we hope to get some money to actually change text for the new brand. We could slowly move over and switch whenever we want. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The summarization of thoughts are that as painful as rebranding might be, as long as we can do this without damaging our name recognition, then it would be OK to move forward. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Name ideas: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Berk: If it is an acronym, having data parallel would be good to be in it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ollie: What about pulling something from the original Dax/PISTON/EAVL names? (Dave: Daxulton?) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dave: WUL-n (VTK-m + 1) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ken: VDP (Visualization - Data Parallel) | ||
| + | Ken: Vapid: Visualization for Parallel Data | ||
| + | |||
| + | Berk: We should create a Google doc where we can push ideas for the VTK-m rebranding. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pisces: The astrological sign has two fish, so it is parallel. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What about XVis? The VTK-m project started there. Berk: there is an XViz that seems pretty well established. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dave: Ochlos - greek for "legion" - a crowd or multitude | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dave: BoLoCoVis - BoatLoad of Cores doing Vis | ||
| + | |||
| + | Berk: Why not LocoVis - LOts of COres doing Vis - Probably conflicts with a LocoVISION | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dave: Cores for you, cores for you, cores for you,... (CoFoy)^n | ||
| + | |||
| + | Google Doc to post ideas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lIY-zi-DTsy0g22KYFpRNSVqeEW53EaJhrfahfWOEsc/edit | ||
Latest revision as of 14:52, 7 March 2024
Attendees: Ken Moreland (ORNL), Ollie Lo (LANL), Berk Geveci (Kitware), Mark Bolstad (SNL), Dave Pugmire (ORNL), Hank Childs (UO)
We have been discussing having VTK-m join the High Performance Software Foundation (HPSF), which is an umbrella organization under the Linux Foundation (LF). To join the HPSF, VTK-m has to join the LF. We have hit a snag in that the LF must own the trademark to any member software. That is a problem for VTK-m because the name is too similar to VTK, and the trademarks would violate each other.
So far, the only solution we have found around this problem would be to rebrand VTK-m. If we created a unique name, then there would be no trademark issue. The problem is that VTK-m already has a significant amount of brand recognition. Can we transition to a new brand without ruining that? Also, how could we move forward without disrupting current users and developers? And if this can all be resolved, what should the new name be?
Berk suggests that we can have two separate names at once. They could even be in separate repositories. One would be VTK-m and the other would be the name for the LF, but the software would be the same. This could be done indefinitely until we are ready to actually make the shift.
We would start by creating a new repository that mirrors VTK-m (or vice versa). It would still have `vtkm` throughout the code, but the name of the repository would be different. After joining, we hope to get some money to actually change text for the new brand. We could slowly move over and switch whenever we want.
The summarization of thoughts are that as painful as rebranding might be, as long as we can do this without damaging our name recognition, then it would be OK to move forward.
Name ideas:
Berk: If it is an acronym, having data parallel would be good to be in it.
Ollie: What about pulling something from the original Dax/PISTON/EAVL names? (Dave: Daxulton?)
Dave: WUL-n (VTK-m + 1)
Ken: VDP (Visualization - Data Parallel) Ken: Vapid: Visualization for Parallel Data
Berk: We should create a Google doc where we can push ideas for the VTK-m rebranding.
Pisces: The astrological sign has two fish, so it is parallel.
What about XVis? The VTK-m project started there. Berk: there is an XViz that seems pretty well established.
Dave: Ochlos - greek for "legion" - a crowd or multitude
Dave: BoLoCoVis - BoatLoad of Cores doing Vis
Berk: Why not LocoVis - LOts of COres doing Vis - Probably conflicts with a LocoVISION
Dave: Cores for you, cores for you, cores for you,... (CoFoy)^n
Google Doc to post ideas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lIY-zi-DTsy0g22KYFpRNSVqeEW53EaJhrfahfWOEsc/edit
