I don't think we're saying different things here. I suspect @flipmcf was thinking this also. The end game is re-positioning in a way that plays to your strengths. The "naming" is the last step, the arguing over names only happens after we have clearly defined what differentiates us.
The steps as I see them.
-
Understanding our benefits and selling points (or the ones we believe we should have)
Anything that makes our benefits/selling points not true, is a gap in the story. We make fixing for the gaps our priority. Do we already have a fix that (just needs integrating)? Do we need to focus time and resources in that area? -
Define what differentiates us (e.g. the Only system that combines ALL of X, Y, Z)
-
Define a category in which we are the leader. (e.g. Plone is the leading XYZ platform and the only system that combines XYZ....)
My 2 cents, not sure how this works in an open source project though.
So.. let's get back to defining our benefits.