On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Frank Sergeant wrote:

> I don't much like "Carnival".  I prefer "Kitchensink".  I could live
> with either.

I could live with either as well.  I admit that "Carnival" might have 
negative implications for some.  (Carnies and all... 
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/92/130/76_1_m.html )  "Kitchensink" 
seems better in this regard.

> I sympathize (but only
> slightly) with Craig with regard to "code" and "coder"

I agree with Craig's points on that too, that summed up why I was a bit 
uncomfortable with it.  But I like that it communicates that it's 
developer-related stuff.  More suggestions are needed for this level.  
(We've had plenty of suggestions for the Kitchensink level.)

> but do not feel
> that (mechanic, writer, audience) is an improvement; I think it 
> actually
> communicates less well.

I agree with you here.

> I'm sorry that I haven't been more help at picking the ideal names.

It is difficult to come up with good ones.  The only additional 
suggestion I would throw in is:

Kernel/Developer/Kitchensink

A bit less clever, but descriptive.  I'm still okay with 
Kernel/Coder/Kitchensink, or Carnival.  Even Kernel/Core/Kitchensink 
would be adequate.

There's not a big hurry to decide on this, so we could probably let 
this discussion muddle along for another week or so (or until everyone 
gets sick of it ;-) ), and see where we end up.  It's tough to get any 
sort of consensus on these sorts of naming decisions... we can narrow 
down serious candidates to those few which have generated at least 3 
favorable comments, and try to decide from there.  
(Minimal/Basic/Normal was a not-bad recent suggestion.)

- Doug Way