• +1 - I support this
• 0 - I am neutral
• -1 - I don't support this

I support naming the OWEA curriculum effort: "InterAct: Web Curriculum Framework".

• Dave McFarland +1 (side question: is this OK with everyone behind the InterAct curriculum?)
• Glenda Sims +1 (great way to build on work that has already been done. great branding. easy to incorporate and credit fantastic material from Opera, Adobe and more :)
• Aarron Walter +1 - Dave: The InterAct curriculum team is positive about the idea of merging with OWEA, but a name change would have to be cleared with them.
• Chris Mills 0 - I don't see why we need "InterAct" - how about just "Web Curriculum Framework"? The "InterAct" might confuse people.
• Leslie Jensen-Inman +1 - (We need a strong, relatable brand to excite and engage people. InterAct does this. The branding is already completed, so can move forward faster. Chris: Web Curriculum Framework = dull and not as brandable, it doesn't have the same call to action. InterAct shouldn't confuse people if we explain it. Think most people see the framework as "InterAct" not "WaSP InterAct".)
• Mark DuBois -1 - I recommed we consider other names. In my opinion, InterAct does not have a particular brand connotation (outside of WaSP). I doubt that many pople in business and education have even heard of that name. Frankly, an education framework is not even on the minds of most people in the industry. With all the talent we have at branding and naming, I would think this would be an excellent time to come up with a new name. This also helps reinforce the concept that OWEA is a new consortium and has a larger curriculum framework consisting of many parts (with InterAct being one of those parts).
• Virginia DeBolt 0 - I am concerned about InterAct as an identifier because it has no meaning educationally. We have to impart the meaning as part of our outreach. Before we came up with the idea of OWEA, InterAct symbolized the relationship between education and industry, but that has moved under the OWEA umbrella in many ways. I don't see anything wrong with having a brand name such as InterAct in front of Web Education, but we'll have to educate people about what it means and make sure it's appropriate. I'm also concerned about Framework. After 40 years in education, I have no idea what a curriculum framework is. Does this have a meaning that everyone knows but me? Web Education, Web Curriculum: those are both pretty clear. Plus, we have the name WE Rock in the mix, yet it isn't anchored in either of our other brand names.
• Scott Fegette - 0 - I'm neutral- there is a preexisting degree of recognition with InterAct - and I do like the name in general - but I agree with Chris that a more straightforward, self-descriptive name could be more universally-acceptable.
• Terry Morris -1 - I share the concerns of Chris, Mark, and Virginia related to using InterAct as an identifier. I support InterAct — I've developed a course for InterAct. Leslie and I are presenting about InterAct next month at a conference. However, InterAct is only one component of a number of different efforts working towards a web curriculum based in standards and industry needs. Since the Web Standards Curriculum name is already taken by Chris, names such as Open Web Education Curriculum, Next Generation Web Curriculum, Web Education Curriculum, or Web Education Curriculum Framework (to indicate that it is not a turn-key curriculum) might be workable and still quickly get the point of our effort across.

After thinking about this process, a question arises in my mind. Is this a decision/ formal vote? How are the votes tallied? (Mark DuBois)

Glenda: Mark, this is a poll to see how members of the group currently stand on this question. The process for formal voting is defined in the OWEA charter under (6) Decisions. OWEA formal voting process is based on W3C formal voting process.