The process towards the ganglia team having ownership over the default ganglia chef cookbook is proceeding well. I have a dilemma I'd like your help solving.
There is a strong preference in the Chef community towards having the name of the github repo containing a cookbook be the same as the name of the cookbook, as well as a strong preference towards having the name of a cookbook being the same as the name of the software it configures.
For example, the popular web server nginx is configured by a cookbook named nginx in a repository named nginx: https://github.com/opscode-cookbooks/nginx. This extends so far as to assert that when downloading the cookbook from the community site directly (eg http://community.opscode.com/cookbooks/nginx) the directory in the tarball must be named the same as the cookbook. When organizing your chef cookbooks, they live in a directory structure that matches the name of the cookbooks; eg chef/cookbooks/nginx/.
This doesn't mix terribly well with organizations that host cookbooks for configuring their own product. The elasticsearch folks, for example, buck this trend and name the repository cookbook-elasticsearch. While some tools understand this, at other times you have to manually rename it to just 'elasticsearch' (the name of the cookbook) before you can use it.
It's understandable why they did this thing, if you go to http://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch, what you find is the actual elasticsearch product. This makes perfect sense, and is what you would expect when you come at it from the perspective of some random person looking at github.
My dilemma: from the perspective of a chef user, we should name the repository 'ganglia'. From the perspective of github, we should name it 'ganglia-cookbook' (or its current name, 'chef-ganglia').
We're in the unique position that this choice is not forced; we don't currently have a repository named 'ganglia', since the main ganglia codebase lives in monitor-core.
If the repo name was the only piece of information presented to a person browsing repositories on github, the choice would be much simpler. The presence of the repo byline ("A chef cookbook for installing and configuring ganglia") makes it pretty clear what the repo contains regardless of its name. This byline makes it reasonable to me to name the repo just 'ganglia' instead of 'ganglia-cookbook' or something like that.
So, who's got opinions?
Please vote! Weak/Strong Support/Oppose/Don't Care:
* write-in alternative