cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: [disucss] approval of trademark enquiries
Date Sat, 07 Jun 2014 12:31:16 GMT
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 09:19 AM, Giles Sirett wrote:
>>
>> I don’t think the current “customer experience” of people who request use
>> of our logo or word mark is very good.  It certainly doesn’t encourage
>> people to use our brand. Take Karens recent request: theres been a dozen
>> or so emails on it, all with our own viewpoint. Karen’s been CC’d on most
>> of those I think. Shes probably sat there, with 1001 deadlines getting
>> frustrated with lots of views on the subject – all she really wants to do
>> is get some tshirts printed in time for some event or another.
>> And Karen does this a lot: I remember the guys at Ikoula
>
> Well, I agree with a lot of this - which is why I broke off my reply to
> private@ only instead of replying-all.
>
> We should absolutely have a policy of ACK'ing the request, then
> discussing, then getting back to the party with any concerns we might
> have once we agree on what they are. (It's been suggested that we have
> one person who handles TM issues, primarily, but many folks were
> concerned about the single point of failure. The flip side is "when
> everybody's responsible, nobody is" and a potential for bike shedding.
>
>> At the moment, the TM guide says this for non-software:
>>
>> • Without explicit written permission, goods bearing any of the
>> CloudStack marks may not be sold.
>> • Designs for non-software goods require both PMC approval and approval
>> from trademarks@apache.org.
>>
>> I would love to see that changed to:
>> If you wish to use the CloudStack mark on any non-software goods (maybe
>> tee shirts for a conference or some marketing collateral) we’d love to
>> see you do that. Please email private@cs.a.o  with artwork or a
>> descrition and we’ll come back to you with approval within 5 days. You
>> must not print until we have approval blah blah
>
> s/come back to you with approval/come back with a decision/
>
> I like setting a time frame, but... what happens if we don't hit it? You
> wait another 5 days, because we're not doing lazy consensus with marks.
> But we should *try* to turn around anything like this within 72 hours.
> (At least 3 business days, not sure I want to commit to decisions by
> Monday if someone shoots an email on Friday morning...)
>
>> The  PMC then can discuss internally if required (vote if required) and
>> send a mail of to Shane and get back to requestor with a simple yes/no
>
> That is how it should go. I don't think it's a good idea to do the
> discussion on marketing@ or spam the person making the request with the
> full discussion.
>

We also have the issue of it not being entirely in our control on many
issues. Consider this example.
Someone comes up with a design they want to make. The PMC isn't happy
with that design, and asks for adjustments. Once the PMC is satisfied,
we pass it along to TM@. TM@ may have questions or concerns, but now
has to use whoever on the PMC brought the subject up as a middleman to
get the questions answered. I'm not sure that's any less maddening.

Mime
View raw message