[Linux-aus] Should Linux Australia change its name

[Gregory Orange]

I've avoided opining on these threads so far, because I'm not entirely
sure of my opinion, especially because there are various threads to
the conversation. Thank you everyone for keeping it mostly civil - I
haven't yet reached for the mute button.

On 27 April 2012 08:13, Steven Hanley <sjh at svana.org> wrote:
> The world changes constantly, stick with a brand and put your energies into
> doing other interesting stuff.

I tend to agree. Given that "Linux" itself is often a misnomer (cf
GNU/Linux) and the FLOSS world has survived that for a long time, and
given the difficulty with quickly coming up with a good
alternative[1], I don't see benefit in a name change. Keep working on
the byline, the activities, the values etc statements, but leave the
name alone. Organisations outgrow their names often, and successfully
don't change them:

> When I see major companies or groups or other organisations rebranding it
> just reeks of a waste of time and money to me.

LA is memorable, and "Linux Australia" is easy to say out loud. Good
enough for me. Perhaps not for others, but that's why mine is just one
opinion. I am somewhat interested in the auspice/umbrella/subcommittee
discussions, but don't have the energy or interest to fully understand
the possibilities. I'd like the name LA to be maintained at the
centre, for the above reasons.

Peace,
Greg.

-- 
Gregory Orange

[1] as evidence by long conversations with lots of suggestions, none
of which leap out as being great, catchy, or quickly meaningful to an
outsider. I actually think for technical organisations (both ICT and
not), names will never be perfect - trying to serve too many criteria
makes it impossible. Accurate, memorable, inclusive, pronounceable,
meaningful to name the first five in my head.