FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-14-2011, 06:37 AM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default New trademark approval policy

Hi,

back in April the board approved a new spins approval policy [1]. I have
put that proposal into the wiki [2] but AFAIK other than that nothing
has happened.

I hereby ask the board to
1. appoint SIGs responsible for various trademark approvals
2. contact these SIGs and ask them to come up with a list of items
or a SOP for approval
3. supervise and coordinate the creation of the checklists/SOPs
4. collect the answers from the SIGs and put them into the wiki
5. clarify the relationship of this proposal and the media handout
requirements. According to Jared they would replace the media
handout requirements
6. clarify the scope of the new policy. While the old media handout
requirements only covered physical media for distribution and
had nothing to do with the spins process this new policy only
deals with what exactly? For example I am sure we want to
involve the design team for media for distribution, but I don't
think they need to approve a spin that has no artwork other than
the one on the spins page.

Note: The board's trac is only open for board members and individual
tickets are visible for the people who filed them. This being said I
wonder if it is really the right place for a transparent process like a
trademark approval.

Regards,
Christoph

[1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2011-04-26/fedora_board.2011-04-26-16.00.log.html#l-32
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_approval_policy

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-14-2011, 03:35 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 08:37:47AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> back in April the board approved a new spins approval policy [1]. I have
> put that proposal into the wiki [2] but AFAIK other than that nothing
> has happened.
>
> I hereby ask the board to
> 1. appoint SIGs responsible for various trademark approvals
> 2. contact these SIGs and ask them to come up with a list of items
> or a SOP for approval
> 3. supervise and coordinate the creation of the checklists/SOPs
> 4. collect the answers from the SIGs and put them into the wiki
> 5. clarify the relationship of this proposal and the media handout
> requirements. According to Jared they would replace the media
> handout requirements
> 6. clarify the scope of the new policy. While the old media handout
> requirements only covered physical media for distribution and
> had nothing to do with the spins process this new policy only
> deals with what exactly? For example I am sure we want to
> involve the design team for media for distribution, but I don't
> think they need to approve a spin that has no artwork other than
> the one on the spins page.
>
> Note: The board's trac is only open for board members and individual
> tickets are visible for the people who filed them. This being said I
> wonder if it is really the right place for a transparent process like a
> trademark approval.
>
>
> [1]
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2011-04-26/fedora_board.2011-04-26-16.00.log.html#l-32
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_approval_policy
>
jsmith: How does this interact with the action item you took at the meeting?
Were you anticipating doing all of this or does your item just fit in as one
step among these steps?

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-28-2011, 09:24 AM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default New trademark approval policy

Am Donnerstag, den 14.07.2011, 08:37 +0200 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
> Hi,
>
> back in April the board approved a new spins approval policy [1]. I have
> put that proposal into the wiki [2] but AFAIK other than that nothing
> has happened.

Two more weeks have passed. Was there any progress?

jsmith: What about Toshio's question?

Regards,
Christoph


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 08-01-2011, 03:23 PM
David Nalley
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> back in April the board approved a new spins approval policy [1]. I have
> put that proposal into the wiki [2] but AFAIK other than that nothing
> has happened.
>
> I hereby ask the board to
> * * 1. appoint SIGs responsible for various trademark approvals
> * * 2. contact these SIGs and ask them to come up with a list of items
> * * * *or a SOP for approval
> * * 3. supervise and coordinate the creation of the checklists/SOPs
> * * 4. collect the answers from the SIGs and put them into the wiki
> * * 5. clarify the relationship of this proposal and the media handout
> * * * *requirements. According to Jared they would replace the media
> * * * *handout requirements
> * * 6. clarify the scope of the new policy. While the old media handout
> * * * *requirements only covered physical media for distribution and
> * * * *had nothing to do with the spins process this new policy only
> * * * *deals with what exactly? For example I am sure we want to
> * * * *involve the design team for media for distribution, but I don't
> * * * *think they need to approve a spin that has no artwork other than
> * * * *the one on the spins page.
>
> Note: The board's trac is only open for board members and individual
> tickets are visible for the people who filed them. This being said I
> wonder if it is really the right place for a transparent process like a
> trademark approval.
>
> Regards,
> Christoph
>
> [1]
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2011-04-26/fedora_board.2011-04-26-16.00.log.html#l-32
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_approval_policy
>
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>


Hi Christoph,

Let me first apologize for the large amount of silence that has
followed this email.

I have been thinking a lot about the policies around trademarks, spin
approval, media handout, etc of late. And sadly I think we've done it
wrong. (I am a guilty party here too I should note.)

I fear we (and I am part of that we) have erected a process around
getting things done and that process is overly onerous to the point of
the process largely be ignored or alternatively being such a stumbling
block that things fail to happen.

To provide some anecdotal information, I look at how Linode had Fedora
15 images up and ready to be deployed 2 days after release[0], they
didn't ask our permission (and didn't need to, there are exceptions in
the Fedora trademark guidelines that allow them to call it Fedora,
even use the logos, provided it contains only Fedora software.) didn't
ask for our help, etc. I contrast that with the EC2 work that Fedora
has been trying to do internally, and realize that if the work had
been done by Amazon or anyone else that they could have skipped
RelEng, QA, Design, and Board approval, and uploaded Fedora 15 AMIs,
called them Fedora, used the logos, etc provided they only used Fedora
software in the AMI. Instead, there are no 'official' Fedora 15 AMIs
yet, and we are 2+ months down the road. It's not a technical problem
that's blocking this. (I know because I am using a Cloud-SIG generated
AMI for Fedora 15 on EC2, it's just not 'official')

Admittedly the Virtual Images and Appliances exception is far broader
than the other exceptions in the guidelines.

That's led me to this bit of thinking: It should NEVER be harder to
get things done inside of Fedora than it is to get the same things
done outside Fedora.

Are things going to be perfect?? No, but they aren't perfect now. We
have a process in place that people either actively flout or they
become bogged down trying to comply with and fail to get anything
done.

I know I am not directly responding to your questions, but I wonder if
our approach in general isn't flawed.

Thoughts, comments, flames, welcome

--David

[0] http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/26/fedora-15/
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 08-01-2011, 05:03 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On 8/1/11 8:23 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> That's led me to this bit of thinking: It should NEVER be harder to
> get things done inside of Fedora than it is to get the same things
> done outside Fedora.
>
> Are things going to be perfect?? No, but they aren't perfect now. We
> have a process in place that people either actively flout or they
> become bogged down trying to comply with and fail to get anything
> done.
>
> I know I am not directly responding to your questions, but I wonder if
> our approach in general isn't flawed.
>
> Thoughts, comments, flames, welcome

The immediate reaction I have to this is: There is a difference between
a third party offering a copy of Fedora in their product space and the
Fedora project providing an official offering.

If it's coming from the Fedora project itself it needs to be documented,
reproducible, done with open source tools, and should be of the same
level of quality we expect for the Live CD or DVD offerings.

In short, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do other people.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 08-01-2011, 06:20 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:03, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/11 8:23 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>> That's led me to this bit of thinking: It should NEVER be harder to
>> get things done inside of Fedora than it is to get the same things
>> done outside Fedora.
>>
>> Are things going to be perfect?? No, but they aren't perfect now. We
>> have a process in place that people either actively flout or they
>> become bogged down trying to comply with and fail to get anything
>> done.
>>
>> I know I am not directly responding to your questions, but I wonder if
>> our approach in general isn't flawed.
>>
>> Thoughts, comments, flames, welcome
>
> The immediate reaction I have to this is: *There is a difference between
> a third party offering a copy of Fedora in their product space and the
> Fedora project providing an official offering.
>
> If it's coming from the Fedora project itself it needs to be documented,
> reproducible, done with open source tools, and should be of the same
> level of quality we expect for the Live CD or DVD offerings.
>
> In short, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do other people.

Well the problem here is "who are we". If I work for Red Hat it is
clear. If I don't it become more nebulous.. if the people at Linode
had signed the FPCA, does that mean they would need to follow these
rules, but if they didn't.. they don't? When does the "We" occur.


> --
> Jesse Keating
> Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
> identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 08-01-2011, 07:05 PM
Tom Callaway
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On 08/01/2011 02:20 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> Well the problem here is "who are we". If I work for Red Hat it is
> clear. If I don't it become more nebulous.. if the people at Linode
> had signed the FPCA, does that mean they would need to follow these
> rules, but if they didn't.. they don't? When does the "We" occur.

Technically, the FPCA has nothing to do with this.

Everyone should be following the trademark guidelines. (To be completely
anal, Red Hat does not have to follow the guidelines because it owns the
trademarks, but it is safe to assume that Red Hat abides by the
guidelines in all sane scenarios.)

This issue is about the case where someone wants approval to use the
Fedora mark (and not the Remix mark), and what the process should be for
that approval.

Christoph is asking for that process to be documented, specifically:

* Identifying which groups within fedora are responsible for signoffs of
spins/images/handouts using the Fedora mark.
* Asking these groups to document the necessary process for getting that
signoff.
* Centralizing this information in a single location

IMHO, it is the Board's responsibility to oversee and complete the above
tasks, keeping in mind that certain use cases may not need signoff from
all groups (e.g. a spin/image not intended for physical distribution
with no changes in artwork probably does not need to be reviewed by the
Design Team).

~tom

==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 08-01-2011, 07:09 PM
Max Spevack
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> When does the "We" occur.

I'll bit. "Wee" occurs the Fedora Project directs a potential user to
it, and in doing so, vouches for it:

So, "we" is:

http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora

http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options

https://spins.fedoraproject.org/

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_SIG/EC2_Images

--Max
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 08-01-2011, 07:11 PM
Max Spevack
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Max Spevack wrote:

> I'll bit. "Wee" occurs the Fedora Project directs a potential user to
> it, and in doing so, vouches for it:

Good grief, I can't type. "We" and "Wee" are two different things. As
are "bit" and "bite".
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 08-01-2011, 07:25 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default New trademark approval policy

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 13:05, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 02:20 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> Well the problem here is "who are we". If I work for Red Hat it is
>> clear. If I don't it become more nebulous.. if the people at Linode
>> had signed the FPCA, does that mean they would need to follow these
>> rules, but if they didn't.. they don't? When does the "We" occur.
>
> Technically, the FPCA has nothing to do with this.

Well I figured it was the starting point on figuring out where the
dividing line begins. In the original email from David, it seemed
there was a way in the trademark policy for some groups to use the
trademark without direct board approval, and then there were ways that
it was required. where that fuzzy line is what I was looking for.

> Everyone should be following the trademark guidelines. (To be completely
> anal, Red Hat does not have to follow the guidelines because it owns the
> trademarks, but it is safe to assume that Red Hat abides by the
> guidelines in all sane scenarios.)
>
> This issue is about the case where someone wants approval to use the
> Fedora mark (and not the Remix mark), and what the process should be for
> that approval.
>
> Christoph is asking for that process to be documented, specifically:
>
> * Identifying which groups within fedora are responsible for signoffs of
> spins/images/handouts using the Fedora mark.
> * Asking these groups to document the necessary process for getting that
> signoff.
> * Centralizing this information in a single location
>
> IMHO, it is the Board's responsibility to oversee and complete the above
> tasks, keeping in mind that certain use cases may not need signoff from
> all groups (e.g. a spin/image not intended for physical distribution
> with no changes in artwork probably does not need to be reviewed by the
> Design Team).
>
> ~tom
>
> ==
> Fedora Project
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org