[chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name
Okay, to move things along, let's take a vote for our group's name. These are the candidates: * Chicago Lispniks * Chicago Lithpers * Chicago Artificial Intelligence Group * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group (Chicago APL Group) * Chicago Area Many Languages Group (CAML Group) * Chicago Lispy Group * Chicago Functional Language Group * Chicago Lispits * Chicago LISPers and Friends * Chicago Area LISPies et al * Chicago LISPit * Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group (ChiLPL - "chill pill") Please follow up in this thread with a blank response except for one of the above names. If you have thoughts, concerns, issues, please start another thread. Thanks! - John Quigley
Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group (ChiLPL - "chill pill") Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y)))
Things have become a bit chaotic, but I've done my best to tally the results so far. We have seven voters, and this is the break-down: ------SNIP------- 3 Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group [QUIGLEY SWEENEY BOBAK] 2 Chicago LISPers and Friends [DOUTHITT DOMA] 1 Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts [FOREMAN] 1 Chicago Lisp Users Group [KICK] ------SNIP------- I sense a certain degree of concern over the "Lisp and Programming Languages" name, and these are my thoughts. First, regardless of which of these names wins, the sole focus of our group should be Lisp. I think our projects, talks and presentations should be Lisp-specific. I think we should remain here on the common-lisp.net mailing list. In my eyes, ChiLPL has the following benefits: - more generic so that: * we can branch out if we get bored * we'll attract a broader range of people - readily identifiable/searchable by people trying to find us You'll have to excuse me, I'm moderately obsessed with branding, marketing and memes. I come by it naturally: my father is a big magazine advertiser in NYC, and I'm friends with several MIT Media Lab crazies. Of course, we can reset this vote if people want (though I tried to take into account changed votes in the tally), and we may consider a watershed vote on the top two candidates. I leave it up to you folks. Let's get this name thing resolved soon so that we can do what we do best - program. - John Quigley
On Dec 8, 2006, at 0:35, John Quigley wrote:
Things have become a bit chaotic, but I've done my best to tally the results so far. We have seven voters, and this is the break-down:
------SNIP-------
3 Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group [QUIGLEY SWEENEY BOBAK]
2 Chicago LISPers and Friends [DOUTHITT DOMA]
1 Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts [FOREMAN]
1 Chicago Lisp Users Group [KICK]
------SNIP-------
I've always liked preference voting. (rank (chicago lisp users group) (chicago lisp users and enthusiasts) (chicago LISPers and Friends) (chicago lisp and programming language group)) And CLU vs CLUE are about the same for me. Since we are from Chicago, shouldn't we be able to vote more than once or after we die?
John Quigley wrote:
First, regardless of which of these names wins, the sole focus of our group should be Lisp. I think our projects, talks and presentations should be Lisp-specific. I think we should remain here on the common-lisp.net mailing list.
In my eyes, ChiLPL has the following benefits:
How about simply just ChiL then? I think it has the advantage over ChiLPL in that there's really only one way to pronounce it, and it keeps the focus on Lisp. Besides that, ChiLPL is good too. -Damien
On 12/8/06, John Quigley <jquigley@jquigley.com> wrote:
In my eyes, ChiLPL has the following benefits:
- more generic so that: * we can branch out if we get bored * we'll attract a broader range of people - readily identifiable/searchable by people trying to find us
I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using "LISP" would be a horrible idea :) Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y)))
Corey Sweeney wrote:
I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using "LISP" would be a horrible idea :)
Consider, however, somebody Googling for a Lisp group in Chicago. Their search will likely be something similar to "chicago + lisp." If our name incorporates those two exact words, we'll be in good shape, I think. - John Quigley
John Quigley wrote:
Corey Sweeney wrote:
I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using "LISP" would be a horrible idea :)
Consider, however, somebody Googling for a Lisp group in Chicago. Their search will likely be something similar to "chicago + lisp." If our name incorporates those two exact words, we'll be in good shape, I think.
That's exactly how I found this group, I Google'd for "chicago lisp".
good point. As I've actually done that search :) I believe i've done the following searches: "chicago lisp" "chicago scheme" "chicago scheme lisp" "illinois lisp" "illinois scheme" Corey P.S. i'm massively into memetics too. Remember to talk to me about it sometime. On 12/8/06, John Quigley <jquigley@jquigley.com> wrote:
Corey Sweeney wrote:
I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using "LISP" would be a horrible idea :)
Consider, however, somebody Googling for a Lisp group in Chicago. Their search will likely be something similar to "chicago + lisp." If our name incorporates those two exact words, we'll be in good shape, I think.
- John Quigley _______________________________________________ chicago-lisp site list chicago-lisp@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp
-- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y)))
Folks: This whole group name thing has gotten me plenty confused. I wonder: is there any opposition to us simply remaining as "Chicago Lisp?" - John Quigley
participants (7)
-
Corey Sweeney -
Damien Grassart -
Damien Kick -
David Douthitt -
Jason Foreman -
John Quigley -
Vinay Doma