Hey man, I dunno. As we've already discussed on Twitter I think #nosql
is a fine name, because of momentum, because of hashtagability and
*because* it stirs things up a bit. I think it's here to stay and
though I kinda disliked it in the beginning for the obvious reasons,
I've now made my peace with that. 
1] You say it alienates people. If you want it to feel less
controversial, I suggest the following two Zen exercies: a) think of
"NoSQL" as in: "there's 'No SQL' interface to these databases," b)
think of "NoSQL" as in: "to store our data we use 'Not Only SQL' but
also other data paradigms."
But for whatever reason, people *love* to bring this up. Enough that
it's actually a theme at the upcoming NoSQL East conference in
Atlanta! So maybe once a large part of the community meets
face-to-face some sort of consensus around another tag will form. But
it seems unlikely at this point.
The name strikes me as fine. It's certainly captivating, and gets the
point across, is easy to find, and really, who the hell cares what the
Enterprise thinks? The Enterprise is a space ship THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
The Enterprise is a spoon?
No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
But can enterprises take open-source alternatives Hadoop, Voldemort seriously?
Competence (or otherwise) is irrelevant. The IT press wields significant influence (in the "enterprise" and elsewhere) and as Sam is trying to point out you can use that to your advantage or you can childishly ignore it and wonder later on why you're not being taken seriously by the grown ups.
As a tangential example of this, of all the "nosql databases" I'm personally quite partial to MongoDB yet the name is offensive to some people  and I barely have the time to advocate good technologies, let alone bicker about naming.
From: nosql-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:nosql-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Ellis
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:07am
Subject: Re: An open letter to the NoSQL community
incompetent IT press? say it ain't so!
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Sam Johnston <sa...@samj.net> wrote:
> While I'm not surprised this is the position of the group, this is how it
> looks to us observers:
>> No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
>> But can enterprises take open-source alternatives Hadoop, Voldemort
> Is that *really* the intended message? At the end of the day it's your group
> and you can do what you like with it, but I'm definitely not alone in
> feeling that you're creating a religious war where none exists... users will
> choose the best tool for the job and Amazon offering both relational (RDS)
> and "non-relational" (SimpleDB) databases is about the best proof of that
> you'll find.
> Sam (who appreciates the "enterprise user" argument is tenuous)
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Paul Davis <paul.jos...@gmail.com>
In my wanderings around the press doing some promoting, I've never heard
one of them say anything disparaging about NoSql. They ask a lot of
questions about what it is, how it is different from the stuff out there
now and what is it all about. I have never heard anyone so to me "What a
dumb name, it ought to be changed."
I think this is a non-starter of an issue. There was a discussion about
it months ago, and those of us ankle deep in it are satisfied with
NoSql. For those that aren't, please feel free to take your software and
call it whatever you want (that's the nice thing about the Internet). I
am happy to have mine lumped into the NoSql community!
> While I'm not surprised this is the position of the group,
It's my position. Anyone else can use it if they want to, or get their