It strikes me that this is only tangentially analogous to Wikimedia/Wikipedia/MediaWiki, and is in fact far closer to WordPress, who don’t seem to have run into many problems distinguishing between the software available for download at wordpress.org and the blog hosting platform at wordpress.com. Perhaps there have been problems, and they’ve had to learn to live with them because it’s now too late to change. Perhaps we could look there for guidance.
2 Likes
There are 446 users registered on the forum. That’s virtually nothing. It’s much better with a little confusion now than having to stick with a bad name later.
(I’m not saying that the name is bad. I’m just saying that we are so small now so we should not take that confusion into consideration.)
2 Likes
There are quite a lot more that have kept an eye on the situation here and not registered. Registered users account for minimal amounts of traffic on the majority of websites.
True in general, but I’m not sure that is true for something that have not even gone live yet. Much better to change names now than later if needed.
2 Likes
I think the site should be non-political. You shouldn’t have to engage in coerced speech to participate in technical discussions on a subject.
Perhaps name of the site isn’t the best choice. I had to look it up in the dictionary to understand what it means.
It is an unusual name. But that has advantages - like being able to get it as a domain name. The “public” site (i.e., the initial live production Q&A system) may yet end up with a different name, but that has not been decided yet.
The software will be. Communities running the software for themselves will be able to choose their own policies. The “official” instance that we run will be subject to the Codidact Code of Conduct.