Sounds good to me!

Victor

Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> escribió:

> Victor,
>
> I made the following up:
>
> User control and compliance for data spaces
> UCoCoDaS or CoCoDas
>
>  --Rigo
>
> On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 23:13 +0200, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote:
>> Dear Stephen,
>>
>> I love your passionate comment -- and I agree with you. What I found
>> most annoying was the excessive length of the acronym.
>> But I have fared no better: I did not suggest any title. My two cents:
>>
>>     Title: Privacy-preserving Framework for Federated Human-Centric
>>     Computation
>>     Acronym: FEHUC
>>     Self-criticism: A very straightforward title that relies on an
>>     ill-defined term (Federated Computation) and an includes equally
>>     vague reference ("human-centric"). But I like other features: it
>>     does not hide the intention, conveying the ideas of good UX and
>>     privacy respectfulness, promising a result that will be tangible
>>     ("framework" sounds to me as "real development here").
>>
>>
>> Víctor
>>
>> El 12/10/2021 a las 22:10, Stephen Farrell escribió:
>> >
>> > Hiya,
>> >
>> > Harsh asked me to review a bunch of text in the next day
>> > or so, and I'll do that.
>> >
>> > My first, and very strong, reaction was to the proposed
>> > project name: "EURO-CyberPERFECTiON" is just awful. It's
>> > maybe 15 years since I evaluated EU proposals but if I
>> > saw that title, my immediate reaction would be that there's
>> > bullshit afoot. Sorry to be so blunt, but I worry that
>> > all your significant effort could be damaged by that. I'd
>> > also worry that any good project results would be tainted by
>> > such a name.
>> >
>> > Reasons:
>> >
>> > 1) "EURO-*" isn't right: I don't believe the goal is at
>> > all to develop some solely-European technology. nor would
>> > such make sense. (It might for legal matters, but not for
>> > tech.) It's also redundant as the EU are the funders and
>> > they know where they're based already;-)
>> >
>> > 2) cyber - despite the EU using the term in the call, use
>> > of that term IMO exposes the user to a valid charge of
>> > using a well-known-to-be-terribly badly defined term.
>> >
>> > 3) perfection - what? really? that's just setting the
>> > project up for a pile of prat-falls.
>> >
>> > All in all that's the worst proposal for a project name
>> > I've encountered and I've been doing EU-funded stuff since
>> > ESPRIT back in the late 1980's. (Again, sorry to be blunt.)
>> >
>> > I don't really mind what the project might be called but
>> > frankly I'd be embarrassed to be associated with something
>> > with that title.
>> >
>> > My suggestion is that two or three of the most involved
>> > people change that to something deliberately bland but
>> > without calling for an all-in discussion which'd waste
>> > time. (I'm happy to be involved in that discussion since
>> > I'm bringing this up late, but I'm also fine if it just
>> > happens with no further input from me.)
>> >
>> > Cheers, and apologies a 3rd time for bluntness,
>> > S.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>



--
EU-CONSENTiNG_consortium mailing list
EU-CONSENTiNG_consortium@alice.wu.ac.at
http://alice.wu.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/eu-consenting_consortium