This was a posting to the SF Bay Region Chapter mailing list, from a member with some relevant corporate experience:
>>>>from Chris Orr:>>>>>>>>>>>>
Naming can be fun. It can also be a gigantic blunder. The marketplace is littered with horrible trade names (remember a computer app called iSmell?). But there are brilliant ones, too (Google is one, imho). I believe SLA is committed to a better process than what we went through years ago when we abandoned the quest for lack of imagination and courage (again, my humble opinion).
People who write names for a living are professional wordsmiths and are generally witty and opinionated. There are several blogs on the practice of naming that are great reads with educational purpose. Just a sample:
I personally am not opposed to a name change per se, but share my friend's concern about the difficulty of the task. I am also very worried that the name change debate takes away from the significant work done in the Allignment Project. What we do is varied, and difficult to define. So difficult that in 100 years, we have not been able to come up with a "better" name for our organization. If we get distracted from the Allignment Project with yet another name change debate, we could very well end up losing both an opportunity to make our organization more visible, and the benefit of 100 years of branding. I'd much prefer to see a name change discussion delayed until much later in the Allignment Project, when we have more concrete results. However, the cat is out of the bag. I urge the leadership to tread carefully and ensure that the Allignement Project does not dissapear under the weight of the naming debate. -Mimi Calter