A little while ago, a few of us had a meeting via phone[1] discussing
the spins process for F11. One of my action items from that meeting
was to come up with a list of technical requirements for Spins. The
Spins SIG already had some up[2], so for the most part, I didn't see a
need to go reinventing the wheel. There is some overlap between my
(woefully incomplete, mostly because I envision it being integrated
into the existing page) draft[3] and the existing process.
This is intended to start a discussion of what other technical
requirements that there are beyond those which are in either of the
two wiki pages. The end goal is to have something that is approved by
both the Board and FESCo, and executed by the Spins SIG.
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
11-10-2008, 12:47 PM
Bryan Kearney
Spins process - technical requirements
Jon Stanley wrote:
A little while ago, a few of us had a meeting via phone[1] discussing
the spins process for F11. One of my action items from that meeting
was to come up with a list of technical requirements for Spins. The
Spins SIG already had some up[2], so for the most part, I didn't see a
need to go reinventing the wheel. There is some overlap between my
(woefully incomplete, mostly because I envision it being integrated
into the existing page) draft[3] and the existing process.
This is intended to start a discussion of what other technical
requirements that there are beyond those which are in either of the
two wiki pages. The end goal is to have something that is approved by
both the Board and FESCo, and executed by the Spins SIG.
Here is an interesting question. We currently have, in the Spins
Kickstart repo [1] those items which carry the trandemark, and those
which do not. If we assume a process somewhat similar to [2] then it is
highly possible for a different set of technical criteria for those
spins which are to be called fedora, and those which are not.
Given the new remix mark, it seems to enable anyone to host these
remixes where they wish. May I suggest that we modify the repo and the
spin process to say that we will only accept those spins which will
carry the fedora name. This would remove the bottom process line, and
would allow us to difine an easier set of technical requirements
(avoiding the "if called fedora, the requirement is X if not Y). This
would make it much easier for the spin SIG to gate / verfy the technical
bits for trademark approval.
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
11-10-2008, 03:07 PM
Bill Nottingham
Spins process - technical requirements
Jon Stanley (jonstanley@gmail.com) said:
> A little while ago, a few of us had a meeting via phone[1] discussing
> the spins process for F11. One of my action items from that meeting
> was to come up with a list of technical requirements for Spins. The
> Spins SIG already had some up[2], so for the most part, I didn't see a
> need to go reinventing the wheel. There is some overlap between my
> (woefully incomplete, mostly because I envision it being integrated
> into the existing page) draft[3] and the existing process.
>
> This is intended to start a discussion of what other technical
> requirements that there are beyond those which are in either of the
> two wiki pages. The end goal is to have something that is approved by
> both the Board and FESCo, and executed by the Spins SIG.
They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
obviously not that relevant.
Bill
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
11-10-2008, 03:46 PM
"Jon Stanley"
Spins process - technical requirements
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
> obviously not that relevant.
Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main
Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to
be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a
sub-standard community-produced spin.
Though I *believe*, however I'm not sure, that spins carrying the
secondary mark would be allowed to use third-party content in their
spins. Is this correct?
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
11-10-2008, 05:36 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
Spins process - technical requirements
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
> > Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
> > obviously not that relevant.
>
> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main
> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to
> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a
> sub-standard community-produced spin.
The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community
members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page
for easy redirection if needed:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Remix
> Though I *believe*, however I'm not sure, that spins carrying the
> secondary mark would be allowed to use third-party content in their
> spins. Is this correct?
That's correct. The new trademark guidelines lay out the use cases
for the Fedora Remix mark:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
obviously not that relevant.
Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main
Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to
be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a
sub-standard community-produced spin.
The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community
members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page
for easy redirection if needed:
So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that
all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the
remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to
enforce the technical requirements.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Remix
Though I *believe*, however I'm not sure, that spins carrying the
secondary mark would be allowed to use third-party content in their
spins. Is this correct?
That's correct. The new trademark guidelines lay out the use cases
for the Fedora Remix mark:
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
11-11-2008, 01:42 PM
Chris Tyler
Spins process - technical requirements
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:19 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
> >>> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
> >>> obviously not that relevant.
> >> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main
> >> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to
> >> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a
> >> sub-standard community-produced spin.
> >
> > The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community
> > members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page
> > for easy redirection if needed:
>
> So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that
> all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the
> remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to
> enforce the technical requirements.
Sounds right. If the word "Spin" is reserved for Spin-SIG & trademark
approved, then it's easy to explain what gets into the spin-repository
and what doesn't. Any aspiring Spin would therefore be a Remix until
it's approved, and for all remixes the technical quality and legal
status (with respect to non-Fedora content) is up to the remixer.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
11-11-2008, 01:42 PM
Bryan Kearney
Spins process - technical requirements
Chris Tyler wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:19 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
obviously not that relevant.
Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main
Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to
be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a
sub-standard community-produced spin.
The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community
members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page
for easy redirection if needed:
So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that
all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the
remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to
enforce the technical requirements.
Sounds right. If the word "Spin" is reserved for Spin-SIG & trademark
approved, then it's easy to explain what gets into the spin-repository
and what doesn't. Any aspiring Spin would therefore be a Remix until
it's approved, and for all remixes the technical quality and legal
status (with respect to non-Fedora content) is up to the remixer.
And.. if we want.. we can have a Remix-category which points to external
sources of remixes. That way we are being good and promoting them, but
saying that spins == trademarks.
-- bk
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
Spins process - technical requirements
