Find a non-conflicting name for project

[emmanuel]

Clockwork is a project that predates this one by two years. Apparently no effort was made to discover if the name was already in use when Adam Wiggins (the author of this project) elected to use it, because Clockwork was published on GitHub and Rubyforge in 2008.

When politely contacted about this name conflict, and the apparent failure to check for existing projects, Adam Wiggins took no responsibility and offhandedly insisted it was my responsibility to rename Clockwork, which pre-dates this project by two years.

This is not good open source citizenship or community membership. Checking for existing projects before publicizing a new one is not an onerous task, it is simple and necessary.

[adamwiggins]

Gem names are reserved by releasing a gem - there's no direct relationship between gem names and rubyforge project names. The clockwork gem was released first, so therefore it gets the name. Sorry for any confusion, but I wish you the best of luck in finding an available name for your gem!

[emmanuel]

The Gem namespace is not the sole authoritative registry of Ruby projects. gem install X is not the only relevant check for an existing Ruby project, that is shortsighted.

A Google search for 'ruby clockwork' would have turned up my project. Typing 'clockwork' into the search box on GitHub would have turned up my project. I can only conclude that you didn't perform either check prior to publicizing your project, which I think it is reasonable to expect of you as an open source author and citizen.

Adam, for me it comes down to this: when you replied to my first contact advising you of our projects' name conflict, you took no responsibility for failing to check for an existing Ruby project called 'Clockwork'.

All I want is acknowledgement of that failure to check. I think it is a minimal effort to expect before publishing.

[emmanuel]

@adamwiggins—

This is old news and you've no doubt moved on, perhaps you've completely forgotten this episode.

By contrast, I was holding on to this as a frustration and annoyance for long after our brief correspondence on the matter. Yes, it may seem a small thing, but I had invested some (small) measure of pride, even identity, in my little 'clockwork' gem. It was the first I had ever released, and though its utility may seem small, I was proud of its existence.

I became incensed when you flatly denied what I felt was a modest request on my part, and I began to harbor a grudge when you dismissed my frustration on the matter. To be honest, for a time I contemplated waging a public relations campaign to discredit your viewpoint, draw opprobrium on your actions and rally support for my own viewpoint. Truly, my feelings are my responsibility, I log them here as a simple statement of my experience.

In my frustration I sought counsel of wiser elders in the Ruby community, and I received the counsel I sought (http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/214437). @trans and Roger D. Pack, two voices on the ruby-talk mailing list who I respect, even revere, offered input on the matter.

They both offered the opinion that, in fact, registration of a gem at rubygems.org is the only real claim one can make to a gem name, regardless of any preference for a more deferential prevailing cultural attitude I (or they) might hold on the matter.

In short, I'm writing to you today, Adam, to apologize for my behavior and to clearly state that I was unfounded in my views and wrong in my actions. I hope that you hold no ill-will in this matter. If we meet, I hope it will be with a clean slate and that this incident will not cast any shadow into the future.

Best regards, Emmanuel

[trans]

I give you a great deal respect for writing that!!!