I concur with Stephen and Rigo.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:28, Rigo Wenning rigo@w3.org wrote:

On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 21:10 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:

...

My first, and very strong, reaction was to the proposed project name: "EURO-CyberPERFECTiON" is just awful.

+1 unfortunately

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

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.

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.