cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Kinsella <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our trademark?
Date Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:35:28 GMT

And a formal brand guide would be great to have IMHO.

On Jul 7, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Chip Childers <<>>

(<> 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

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.



Stratosec Compliance as a Service - Secure Finance and Heathcare Clouds
o: 415.315.9385

View raw message