Should we rename our GitHub organization from projectmesa to mesa?

[EwoutH]

I've been in contact with the current owner of github.com/mesa, and he's willing to transfer the mesa name to us. This would change our URLs from github.com/projectmesa/mesa to github.com/mesa/mesa (and similarly for mesa-geo, mesa-frames, etc.).

Motivation

I think github.com/mesa signals authority and maturity in a way that "projectmesa" doesn't. The shorter, direct name makes it clear we are the Mesa for agent-based modeling in Python. "Project Mesa" sounds somewhat experimental or temporary, like it has an end date. We don't have "Project NumPy" or "Project Pandas" – they just own their names directly. We're Mesa, and I think we should own it.

A shorter URL is also simply more powerful and memorable. It removes ambiguity and makes our position in the ecosystem clearer to new users discovering agent-based modeling.

Steps

GitHub automatically handles redirects when organizations are renamed, so existing links and git remotes will continue to work. However, we'd still need to update all internal references across our repositories – documentation, CI/CD configs, citation files, package metadata, etc. I've prepared a draft PR (#2880) showing what this would look like for the main repository. It was relatively straightforward.

Considerations

Some people like "Project Mesa" because it feels more inclusive as an umbrella term. There's also real work involved in updating references, and we have other priorities like updating mesa-geo and mesa-examples for 3.3+. However, this opportunity might not come again – if we want the mesa name, we should probably act now and can always hold off on the actual migration until we're ready.

Discussion points

I'm personally in favor of making this change in the short or medium term, but I would like to hear from everyone.

• Do you think we should pursue this rename?
• What concerns or benefits do you see that I haven't mentioned?
• If we do this, are there any reasons to do it later than soon?
• Should we acquire the organization name even if we don't migrate immediately?

This is a significant branding decision, and I'd really appreciate hearing different perspectives before we move forward.

[Tejasv-Singh]

The only caution I’d flag is ensuring we coordinate this change with the 3.3+ updates and other repo syncs so we don’t stretch bandwidth too thin. But overall, I’m definitely in favor.

[Anshuprem]

Yeah, definitely do it – and grab the mesa org now.
I had the exact same reaction when I first looked for the repo: typed github.com/mesa, saw the old OpenGL thing, then found projectmesa/mesa and honestly paused for a second thinking “wait, is this the real one?”
That tiny moment of confusion shouldn’t exist for new users. projectmesa always felt like a placeholder. Definitely go for mesa🔥.