cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our trademark?
Date Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:28:51 GMT
+1 - The brand/mark is something that it's the responsibility of the
project to maintain and police. While the Foundation provides the
legal construct for holding that mark for the project, that
responsibility to manage and police the brand should follow with the
requisite authority to do so.


On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Chip Childers <> wrote:
> ( and have been
> BCC'ed so they are aware I have started this discussion on marketing@)
> Hi all,
> An opportunity has been presented to us to allow the CloudStack PMC to
> directly manage our trademark.  I wanted to get a discussion going about
> (1) do we want to do this, and (2) if so what process would we follow
> for it.  What I need out of this thread is a gauge of consensus, and
> input into our approach (if you agree with the idea of taking over
> direct management). FWIW, I'm a strong +1 to taking on this
> responsibility as a project.
> As background for those that might not have it, today's trademark
> guidelines (for the project [1] and the foundation [2]) explicitly state
> a number of instances where the VP Brand Management for the foundation
> must explicitly approve certain requests (including, for example,
> non-software goods with a project logo).
> Discussion within the ASF board and trademarks committee has lead to a
> conclusion that (at least) CloudStack's PMC could take on primary
> responsibility for management of it's brand. The specifics of how this
> will occur (board resolution or trademark policy changes) are still
> under discussion.
> The current general opinion of those groups is that trademark management
> by a PMC like CloudStack would be done in a way similar to how our
> security team works.  The email list is
> responsible for handling all inbound vulnerability reports, and working
> to correct them with the appropriate committers.  The
> list members are automatically included in our list,
> so that they can provide oversight and step in to help / advise when
> necessary.  I expect something similar will occur for trademark
> management questions.  I also expect that we will see the
> foundation-wide trademark policy [2] be patched to account for PMC's
> owning "approvals" related to their specific marks.
> One of the reasons for this shift is the desire to scale the approval
> process beyond a single individual.  IMO, we need to be sure that our
> approach to management of approvals is similarly able to scale within
> the project itself (i.e.: I'm against a single individual being the one
> to have to always say "approved".)
> If we agree in principle, I would expect that we would make changes to
> our project's trademark policy [1] to clarify this decision making
> authority and our process / approach for getting approvals.  I also
> expect that we would modify our project bylaws [3] to provide for a
> clear mechanism for trademark approval.  Last, we would perform a PMC
> vote that signifies that we want to take on this responsibility to the
> board.
> So, comments?  I'm looking for comments from anyone in the community
> here, especially if you are someone that asks for approvals today.  We
> want to make it easy to get approval if the policy is being followed,
> yet ensure that everyone is using our brand correctly.
> I'll wait a few days, and if nobody else proposes patches
> to the relevant project documents, I'll propose them myself and see if
> they match up with everyone's opinions.
> -chip
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

View raw message