Mailing-List: contact marketing-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: marketing@cloudstack.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CD9894CA.ACDB3%mark.hinkle@citrix.com>
References: 
 <CAKprHVZT2hk3x5HY1LcTGx90oqEmy77-0+ZjZCyYOnfKFDzPUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD9894CA.ACDB3%mark.hinkle@citrix.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:40:48 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAPaJBx6L+me-WtDYtGPof3WhPo+YauR0HfvMCJsT9h8NtgeTCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Website - CloudStack Collaboration Conference NA '13
From: Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
To: "marketing@cloudstack.apache.org" <marketing@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd7669221e1b204dadff086

--047d7bd7669221e1b204dadff086
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Mark,

What was the subject/date of the thread with ConCom? I was unable to find
it in my archives. (Likely an error on my part.)

Thanks,


On 21 April 2013 00:07, Mark Hinkle <Mark.Hinkle@citrix.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> On 4/20/13 6:40 PM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >> I've not been involved in many conferences related to Apache products,
> >>so
> >> my advice here is not representative of policy. Just what seems like
> >>might
> >> 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.
> >>Conferences
> >> 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
> >>to
> >> establish that approval retroactively.
> >>
> >> Perhaps send a message to trademarks@apache.org, CCing
> >> private@cloudstack.apache.org, detailing the ways in which you are
> using
> >> the Apache CloudStack trademarks, and the steps you have taken to make
> >>sure
> >> they are used responsibly.
> >>
> >> Perhaps send a message to concom@apache.org, CCing
> >> private@cloudstack.apache.org, detailing the plans for the conference.
> >>(I
> >> am not sure what specific information ConCom are looking for. But see
> >>Ross
> >> Gardler's recent thread on dev@cloudstack.apache.org for more context.
> >>For
> >> 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
> >>and
> >> events and what have you, that I haven't followed up on yet. (Sorry
> >>about
> >> 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,
> >>and
> >> two separates threads as detailed above, copying the PMC, should be
> >>enough.
> >> (Assuming nobody raises objections within 72 hours.)
> >>
> >> Chip, or anyone else from the PMC, feel free to correct me on any of
> >>this!
> >>
> >
> >My understanding based on this thread:
> >http://cloudstack.markmail.org/thread/eufkzvnt6v3mz4n6
> >
> >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.
> >
> >--David
>
>


-- 
NS

--047d7bd7669221e1b204dadff086--