Comments on: TOPP Labs needs a new name

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:36:23 +0000

The deed is done.

http://wrkng.net/2010/02/say-hello-to-civic-works/

Thanks everyone — we couldn’t have done it (as well) without you!

By: Say hello to Civic Works » wrkng

Say hello to Civic Works » wrkng — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:15:54 +0000

[...] you so much to everyone who helped us think through our re-name of TOPP Labs yesterday. Your feedback and insights were absolutely invaluable to our [...]

By: Noel Hidalgo

Noel Hidalgo — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:25:42 +0000

if you’re looking for some bad ass street street cred, i would have a blog titled “the journal of civic hacking” or “civic hacking quarterly”

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:00:27 +0000

Was thinking that we need to open up the language a little here. What you guys do is to make the city easier to use. Sorta turbocharge access to it.

WARNING: Unedited brain dump coming..

- Civic Layer Lab
- Urban Upcoding Project
- Hyper Planning LTD
- Urban Coding
- The Functional City Project
- Code to Action
- Coding the City
- Coding for a New City
- Civisimplify
- CivicCode
- ThinkCity
- MakeCity
- Urban Data Insitute
- SimpleCivic
- AHHHH! I can’t think of any more
- Civic Idea Center
- PlaceCoders
- CivicInfo
- Urban Information
- Urban Layer Makers
- EasyCiv
- The Layered City Project
- The Community Layer Lab
- Unicorn Rainbow Code Nursery.
- I’m out.

Jeff

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:56:02 +0000

@Noel – I agree with that. I don’t see us having “hacking” or “hacker” in the official name. Do you think maintaining the Civic Hacker blog would have the same effect? I kinda think not, and I like it for its dev cred.

By: Noel Hidalgo

Noel Hidalgo — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:51:14 +0000

as a govie/govvy/gov-ee, i hate to say this, but you need to be careful with “hacking.” it’s like branding yourself as an insurgent, it WILL cut both ways and it will hurt at times. if you do go that route, make sure you have full body armor and a solid helmet.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:23:29 +0000

@John I think we are definitely leaning towards some sort of [meaningfully-named project/product] -> [aspirational group/org name] kind of model. I think the biggest question is how many layers are appropriate — given the current arrangement, it would be [project] -> [new-topp-labs-as-incubator-group] -> TOPP. IMO, that’s probably too many layers. Even if that describes our internal structure, that’s probably not how we’d want to present it publicly.

I like the idea of having a quasi-public identity for [new-topp-labs]: less public than the present arrangement (i.e., no entire dedicated website), rather more of a translucent layer on top of individual initiatives.

So for example, I could see the Civic Hacker blog moving to http://civichacker.org, with light branding somewhere that says: The Civic Hacker. A project of [Alpha Code Werkz / New TOPP Labs] at The Open Planning Project. Then, the link to new-topp-labs goes back to an overview page at http://openplans.org/new-topp-labs. This is still the three-layer model, I guess, but one that frames [new-topp-labs] less as an organization in its own right, and more of an internal program.

Just thinking out loud here; I don’t have this totally figured yet. What feels most comfortable at the moment is a neither-black-nor-white approach to whether [new-topp-labs] is an outward facing initiative or just an internal group.

By: Michael Keating

Michael Keating — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:04:12 +0000

@fkh While Civic Code Crucible is clearly the strongest, most heavy metal of all the suggestions, I think Civic Works is my favorite so far, but…

@Andrew Nicklin’s point about the value of Open is important, so what about Open Works?

By: John Tolva

John Tolva — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:56:07 +0000

Just recently struggled with the naming problem for City Forward, which, granted, is a project rather than an organization — but I think some of the challenges are similar.

Have you considered uses of “metropolitan” or “metro”? Downside: sometimes too-closely associated with transit. Upside: can imply regional coverage greater than the city proper.

I’ve seen the word “collaboratory” tossed around — mostly in academic working groups. Bit buzzwordy, but it does condense a few ideas.

I like the “[project name] at [possibly rebranded organization name]” formula, but my concern is that “planning” and “plans”, while very meaningful to the folks here, is not immediately associated with urban planning to broader audiences. There are lots of kinds of planning and god forbid you associate yourself with the world of certified project management. (I kid, I kid, because I fear.)

What about bubbling up projects via descriptive, specific names and then qualifying that with an “at” non-specific, aspirational, more brand-like name for what was TOPP Labs? Best of both worlds. It’d be relatively easy to understand what the project is and who it comes from — but frees the-organization-formerly-known-as-TOPP-Labs from needing to define itself too narrowly. Room for future growth.

No matter what, this is a fun exercise. And a useful way of asking ourselves collectively just what the hell we think we’re doing.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:46:03 +0000

No, there’s more — it was just so deep that I’m still processing it… Seriously though, I think you make a good point about simplicity and also about the “Civic Hacker” brand. Polis and Agora are spot on in terms of meaning, probably a bit of a stretch for us in this case.

Tick, tock.