Let’s name this project.
As the guy who came up with this thing I’ve chosen the catchy and short name “Go” over a drier name like “ASMotionBaseSystem”. I understand that Go sounds like a brand name but, in the end I prefer it: it is the shortest word I could think of that implies motion. I imagine that the natural assumption that “Go” is another MosesSupposes brand name will quickly evaporate once it’s out of the garage, pushed into the public domain, and people start to get familiar with it.
But if the community at large strongly disagrees with this choice, I’m happy to reconsider it, so please don’t think of the name Go as “set in stone by Moses,” 
and please speak up if you want to propose a more generic, less brandlike name.
If we do go with Go, we next need a package name, which would also be used for a URL.
Here are some ideas:
org.gostandard
org.thegostandard
org.goanimation
org.goanimationstandard
org.goanimationsystem
org.goanimationbase
org.gobase
org.thegobase
org.thegosystem
org.gobasesystem
Of these my vote would be “org.goanimationsystem” because it’s readable and descriptive. Please comment with your ideas and preferences!
Filed under: Go by mosesoak
I like org.goanimationsystem too, but it’s long. Fuse and FuseKit were pretty short catchy names… ‘go’ itself is short and catchy too, but ‘goanimationsystem’ is incredibly long. I am thinking about the time when this ’system’ becomes available to everybody and people need to ’spread-the-word’… spreading ‘FuseKit’ or ‘Fuse’ was nice and easy…. I’ve told lots of people and it was easy to remember for them (even when it was night, and they were drinking heavily… the next morning they could still remember
) On the other hand… using ‘GO’ will be easy… Flash-people (not my parents or not-nerd friends) will automatically connect it to the ‘Animation System’. So you’ve got my vote for your recommendation. 
What about calling it Mogo?
I like the name because it sounds catchy (like mojo) and hints both at your name and the word motion
Sam – that’s cute, but I’m not looking to brand the Go project to MosesSupposes, quite the opposite. It is destined to be a completely generic standard in the public domain, with no associations to myself or my company stamped on it.
If we take as a granted that the sytem is called Go, my suggestion is that we make the package name a bit more descriptive, so that a newcomer might immediatly grasp that it has something to do with a “set of base animation classes for ActionScript.”
The URL and package name do not “brand” the product, they wrap and present the product. In this way, I believe we can use a fruity product name for something very concrete, just as Cairngorm is the name of a Swiss alp, but keep things clear for newcomers or a developer opening packages in someone else’s work. It is crucial for that developer that we clue them into what Go is, instead of wrapping this thing in a shroud of mystery.
G.A.S
add some gas to my flash project hehe. Genius…. I actually will probably refer to it as gas anyways 
The Go Animation System is great man.. honestly the size of your name will not be crazy important. People will talk about it, and come up with a good way to refer to it, like GAS hehe.
Its the code and the power thats gonna make this project. After seeing fuse I got no doubt this is gonna rock. I would stick with goanimationsystem, its not that hard to type and honestly it will be bookmarked and linked more often!
Thanks for everything moses!
-ross
cool, thanks for the feedback Ross!
leave the package name as “go”, com.go. … is such a nice succinct path. Having package name match your domain is just a convention to maintain a unique namespace. Unless the real go.com represents an API for developers I don’t think anyone will get confused.
I agree with Tim, except for the .com
).
maybe keep it international and stick with the .org instead ?
(I liked MoGo as well, but I can imagine it’s a bit too close to Moses for such a generic product
Sorry guys but Go.com is uh, taken shall we say? I’m interested in using a unique URL that doubles as a descriptive package name.
“Go” is not descriptive unless you’ve already read about what it is, it’s just a generic word. One side of me thinks I should just scrap that name altogether in favor of something totally generic… this is not a branded product or animation package, it’s a set of base classes that don’t do anything on their own until you extend them. They will be buried inside other possibly branded product packages that don’t need confusion and competition. Those classes might want to be built on something self-explanatory like MotionBase. See my point?
gotools
GOOtools (GO Objects)
GOOscripts
GOOeffects ( || fx)
goscripts
gobots :p
objectgo
realtimeline
flexplay
airplay
flexframes
..I want to help beta
org.golib
how about org.goal or just goal.* Go Animation Library. The gobase is not bad. But names dont’ matter much just quality, easy usage and performing code. It sure is a fun time to see flash evolving and all the great toolkits out there since AS3 released.
Names do matter. They affect a lot of things about how a project is perceived and adopted.
golib and goal.. these are great! However, I typed them into my browser and got the Gun Owners Action League and Go Liberal (hmm.. seems we have a possible head to head here!) Heh.
I think I’ve got it. The word “goban” is the japanese name for the playing boardin the game of Go, which I’m loosely basing the Go branding concept around. Luckily, Go Base Animation = GoBAn, so the name Go Base Animation Library works…