I'm seconding Dan on this, name ideas was something being proposed to me and all before Fred shared his intention to stop working on "cyclone". I didn't even liked the idea of forking cyclone then, the reason being that there was no significant change for for projects, one only being able to be updated...
now, from a previous thread
2016-02-20 15:57 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber
<brbrofsvl@gmail.com>:
If a Max 4.6 compatibility library is really necessary, perhaps that could be the fork with the new name.
I agree to Matt on this too, but with the remark that Max 4.6 compatibility would also be present in the updates and further development of cyclone
keeping it simple, the whole issue camos with some of us wanting to collaborate and work on updates of cyclone, and the current maintainer having issues with it, it's not that he didn't want to spend his time working on it, more like he was against that others would help him do that.
do we really need to fork in order to update a library keeping its original goal?
I'm ok with whatever the community think it's best. I already started working a lot on this and now I'm just on it, 20 new objects in the way, a whole revision of all help files going on, it's happening...
cheers