cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hinkle <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Website - CloudStack Collaboration Conference NA '13
Date Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:07:21 GMT
I got permission for the conference back in February from ConCom. Nick B.
asked that we meet the requirements to have reps from more than two
organizations on the planning committee. I thought we sent it to private
but those archives aren't trasnparent so I cat confirm we also discussed
on the public list with no objections.

We have included Chip Childers, John Kinsella, David Nalley and Joe
Brockmeier from the PMC to fulfill the requirements of having members from
multiple organizations on the planning committee.

We met on Friday and agreed we'd make the site live and let the marketing
list know that it was live so we could get feedback and make sure all
trademarks are applied properly. We agreed to make sure any changes
happened as soon as possible if there were errors.

I thought I jumped through every possible hoop here but if there's
something I missed I'd be glad to do something else.


On 4/20/13 6:40 PM, "David Nalley" <> wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Noah Slater <> wrote:
>> I've not been involved in many conferences related to Apache products,
>> my advice here is not representative of policy. Just what seems like
>> be a good idea based on what I know.
>> Ideally, the plans for this conference would have been run past the
>> CloudStack PMC, ConCom, and Brand before we went live with it.
>> need approval from these groups. But what's done is done.
>> However, it might be a good idea to run it past them now, as we do need
>> establish that approval retroactively.
>> Perhaps send a message to, CCing
>>, detailing the ways in which you are using
>> the Apache CloudStack trademarks, and the steps you have taken to make
>> they are used responsibly.
>> Perhaps send a message to, CCing
>>, detailing the plans for the conference.
>> am not sure what specific information ConCom are looking for. But see
>> Gardler's recent thread on for more context.
>> smaller events it looks like this sort of thing is not important, but
>> ConCom certainly need to be involved for any conference level events.)
>> There's an active thread about how PMC oversight works for trademarks
>> events and what have you, that I haven't followed up on yet. (Sorry
>> that.) But until we have something ratified, I am assuming that approval
>> for things like this can be done via lazy consensus. i.e. This thread,
>> two separates threads as detailed above, copying the PMC, should be
>> (Assuming nobody raises objections within 72 hours.)
>> Chip, or anyone else from the PMC, feel free to correct me on any of
>My understanding based on this thread:
>is that concom was pinged back in February, but I can't verify as I am
>not on concom and can't peruse the archives. In the referenced thread,
>8 PMC members participated and seemed to all be for the event, so I
>don't think that PMC approval is an issue.

View raw message