Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages

[Jim Porter]

On 5/14/2023 12:47 AM, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> I agree with everything up until the last paragraph, but am not
> convinced that encouraging a "fun name" should be part of the
> guidelines.

I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the 
Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward name 
like "gobject". However, I also think it's important to show how you can 
come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who just can't 
let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the 
documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards 
making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged.