Re: [m2m-iwg] propose name change

["Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Julien,

Good point. If others prefer Eclipse IoT I am fine with that too.

-----Original Message-----
From: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Julien Vermillard
Sent: December-12-13 11:41 AM
To: m2m Industry Working Group
Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] propose name change

Eclipse IoT is not a better fit than Eclipse openIoT ?

Eclipse and open is a bit redundant?

My 2 cents,
Julien
--
Julien Vermillard :::: http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Ian Skerrett <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Gregor,
>
> I have seen the EU project called OpenIoT. I have also seen the term 
> used as a hashtag on twitter and used as a general term by others. I 
> suggested OpenIoT since I think it better reflects what we are trying to
accomplish.
> Like Eclipse M2M, we would use it as Eclipse OpenIoT, so I don't think 
> there would be confusion.
>
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> On Behalf Of Gregor Schiele
> Sent: December-11-13 5:46 PM
> To: m2m Industry Working Group
> Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] propose name change
>
> Ian,
>
> In the academic IoT community people might be a bit confused by this name.
> There is a well-known FP7 european project named OpenIoT, which is 
> mainly looking into providing an open IoT architecture for Cloud-based IoT
systems.
> See http://openiot.eu/
>
> Why not just Eclipse IoT?
>
> Cheers
> Gregor
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2013, at 15:44, "Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> In past meetings we have discussed changing the name of the WG but I 
>> think
> the time has come to take action. Therefore, I would like to 
> officially propose we rename the Eclipse M2M Working Group to be 
> Eclipse OpenIoT Working Group. The short version would be Eclipse OpenIoT.
>>
>> In the last year, the use of IoT has become more and more common,
> especially from organizations not traditionally associated with the
telcos.
> Companies like Cisco, Intel, Bosch, Oracle and others are pushing 
> forward with the IoT term. I do believe M2M is still a valid and 
> popular term that we need to use when describing our collaboration but 
> I do think it is a limiting term.
>>
>> I also believe that using the prefix 'Open' communicates a key part 
>> of our
> objective.
>>
>> We have a scheduled WG call next Tuesday. I'd like to add to the 
>> agenda
> this proposal. If you have any comments, please feel free to reply to 
> this email or attend the meeting next Tuesday.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> m2m-iwg mailing list
>> m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> m2m-iwg mailing list
> m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg
_______________________________________________
m2m-iwg mailing list
m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg