Again @Kilby - I think I agree with you on naming. Except that I diametrically disagree with you about naming. Hunh, whaat??
Okay, there are names and names.
There is an actual, technical hostname, along with domain name, together making FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name). The sort of thing used in URLs and “web addresses”. What people type into their web browser or auto completes in their browser etc.
Carl Fink has already remarked about having some domains ready in reserve (on the very modern model of splitting a word into different segments). These will be variations on ComicsIdontunderstand but not literally precisely that , and not typed as that.
Kilby I don’t see whether you are against that , and if so why,
If by the “the current name” you meant something mentioning GoDaddy or a squirrel, I wouldn’t worry, I think we are gone from that.
There is also the kind that of name that appears as title, or informal designation in speech, etc. I think I saw some remarks that we should not call the new site anything using “Don’t understand” or the like, with the suggestion it would be disrespectful.
I don’t see how it would be wrong. Think about tribute bands. (Well maybe that’s something people don’t like so much). They may be bad or sully the originals - if the content is poorly done - but the connection to the original is best reflected right in the name, and if they are pretty good then it is a positive reflection to acknowledge the original.
Okay, this is the sort of thing to be hammered out in semi private discussion by the POLICY ADVISORY TEAM.
Along with things already mooted here, like the cycle of daily posting.
Also design goals - Kilby you had some remarks on WP Theme (loosely called templates) .These are important to get in our heads as goals - though to get a fast start I would think it’s fine to start off with simplest vanilla clunky whatever.
So if you have ideas n this sort of score, please indicate you will serve on the POLICY ADVISORY TEAM. Thanks!!