(Capturing email discussion)
OSIdM4HE is the current name of the initiative. It was partly picked because it was an unpronounceable geeky name that would have to be changed to something better. Here are considerations in how we get to a better name.
At least these things related to the initiative will need names:
- the initiative
- the product suite
- the components of the product suite (aka modules)
- the workstreams (ie, units of investment)
- various coordinating bodies (per-workstream, umbrella)
These names presumably be related. In one style of naming, if the initiative is "the Foo Initiative" then the product suite would probably be "Foo" or "the Foo Suite" or "the Foo IAM System". The components would be "the Foo Registry", "the Foo Provisioning Service" etc. Maybe the workstreams would be named after the components, but maybe not. It could be that Grouper (or KIM), retaining its name, would be "one of the Access Management components for the Foo IAM System", and that integration of it into the suite would be worked on in the "Foo Access Management workstream".
Other offered opinions:
Abstract names like Shibboleth and Kuali (or Apache) are appealing because they can be quirky and fun and distinctive; and they can be suggestive of a topic without tying the project to a particular scope. There is lots of experience (at least with Kuali and Apache) in using those names to label disparate products in a family or suite or large project.
Clever names from world languages may have hidden pitfalls in being culturally insensitive, or off-putting to some groups. Pronounceability by speakers of many languages is good.
Techies are typically not very good at naming. Maybe we need help from a branding/marketing professional.
We'll need a real name, or at least a better name, pretty soon in order to be able to sell the notion to potential investors. And a good name for the suite and the components is needed in order to compete with the commercial suites, at least in the eyes of executives who often make purchasing decisions.
There should be a strategy about naming of related components like CAS and Shibboleth that would be in the suite but not necessarily under the shared architectural umbrella.