Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-marketing-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-marketing-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 57D8611357 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71474 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2014 17:28:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-marketing-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 71363 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2014 17:28:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact marketing-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: marketing@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list marketing@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 70719 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jul 2014 17:28:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:28:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.219.48] (HELO mail-oa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.219.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:28:49 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m1so4955927oag.35 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=h83CssJ8jpLGC4EWjHSR/ONUUJcfcufC1A8hQf4457c=; b=kpdn3EdEQ8VOkdjCP1UQ9WvTF+ddE2asGygO6uAFWkn9em+dSRwW+S3VXA1Yn3CLOi dnfDRTniRQTNx1YhdhJfbgxaRZfym+Np8hNJqFpT8W+pgUD0VEjtcU4VgVfSv2oM6AOE SgTDcniKk+d/p7yocqHlhyn4BXUnz64Sc7elFR3sJ1WSVkxbbRzHnOxRIUMHEKEMf+xn /BtpDdHzPh+P5iechU7XSVKql6WttMvrQWLJT4vLC0/FmO6pLrQtQhmHlz482kdQ/Wrm nZnGcTNDUWUnZflHDfzTgPcGA60EB7Iz8EP1E2Z053sQytI9UobgPQ9dvegN097E5/sI pwpw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlwAB9XFsihTwC0azmqv9A1mNldSI115EHFTeu8ezt5yQd4k4rHGlxFVG4mhePYWFM34zA+ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.91.4 with SMTP id ca4mr33101994obb.26.1404754108886; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.92.214 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [208.95.2.129] In-Reply-To: <77db1202e0544868bc0e427005ab3373@DBXPR07MB094.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> References: <20140707160405.GH3402@Chips-MacBook-Air.local> <20CF38CB4385CE4D9D1558D52A0FC05876C6DD@SJCPEX01CL03.citrite.net> <77db1202e0544868bc0e427005ab3373@DBXPR07MB094.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:28:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our trademark? From: Amy Lindberg To: "marketing@cloudstack.apache.org" Cc: "private@cloudstack.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f33ca844c104fd9dcd20 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8fb1f33ca844c104fd9dcd20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there any value in creating a simple brand guide that includes examples of how to and how not to use the trademark, color scheme etc? I would be willing to put something together if necessary. Or maybe there is one already that I am not aware of. -Amy *Amy Lindberg* Director of Operations Office +1.800.735.7104 | Direct +1.515.612.7792 Mobile +1.515.250.7003 | www.appcore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- The information in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately thereafter. Thank you. On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Giles Sirett wrote: > +1 > > As I've previously said, I think the current process for people seeking > guidance/requesting use of TM's is clumsy at best. > > From memory, I don=E2=80=99t think I've ever seen Shane (VP Brand) disagr= ee with > our PMC views on any case, so for me that removes any concerns whether we > have got the required skills between us: we seem to reach the same > conclusions as shane > > I'm also +1 on a shake up of the process and how we present that to the > outside world. I don't think we're encouraging enough with people that wa= nt > to use the marks > > > > Kind Regards > Giles > > D: +44 20 3603 0541 | M: +44 796 111 2055 > Giles.Sirett@shapeblue.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com] > Sent: 07 July 2014 18:06 > To: private@cloudstack.apache.org; marketing@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our > trademark? > > ++1 > > My only question would be what type of skills is necessary to take on thi= s > work and do we have that skill set and time within the PMC. But almost > anything is better than what we have now. > > Thanks for driving this Chip! > > --Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chipchilders@apache.org] > > Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 9:04 AM > > To: marketing@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our > > trademark? > > > > (private@cloudstack.apache.org and trademarks@apache.org 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 security@cloudstack.apache.org email > > list is responsible for handling all inbound vulnerability reports, > > and working to correct them with the appropriate committers. The > > security@apache.org 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] http://cloudstack.apache.org/trademark-guidelines.html > > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ > > [3] http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related service= s > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build< > http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> > CSForge =E2=80=93 rapid IaaS deployment framework > CloudStack Consulting > CloudStack Infrastructure Support< > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> > CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses< > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended > solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views o= r > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily > represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not th= e > intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based > upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the send= er > if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a > company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is = a > company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Bl= ue > Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Bras= il > and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a > registered trademark. > --e89a8fb1f33ca844c104fd9dcd20 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is there any value in creating a simple brand guide that i= ncludes examples of how to and how not to use the trademark, color scheme e= tc? I would be willing to put something together if necessary. Or maybe the= re is one already that I am not aware of.=C2=A0

-Amy=C2=A0

Amy Lindberg
Director of Operations=C2=A0

= Office=C2=A0+1.800= .735.7104=C2=A0=C2=A0| =C2=A0Direct=C2=A0+1.515.612.7792
Mobile=C2=A0+1.515.250.7003=C2=A0| = =C2=A0www.appcore.com
-----------------------= -------------------------------------------------------

The information in this message is intended f= or the named recipients only. It may contain information that is privileged= , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the i= ntended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, di= stribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this= message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,= do not print it or disseminate it or its contents. In such event, please n= otify the sender by return e-mail and delete the e-mail file immediately th= ereafter. Thank you.



On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Giles S= irett <giles.sirett@shapeblue.com> wrote:
+1

As I've previously said, I think the current process for people seeking= guidance/requesting use of TM's is clumsy at best.

>From memory, I don=E2=80=99t think I've ever seen Shane (VP Brand) disa= gree with our PMC views on any case, so for me that removes any concerns wh= ether we have got the required skills between us: we seem to reach the same= conclusions as shane

I'm also +1 on a shake up of the process and how we present that to the= outside world. I don't think we're encouraging enough with people = that want to use the marks



Kind Regards
Giles

D: +44 20 = 3603 0541 | M: +44 796 111 2055
Giles.Sirett@shapeblue.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huan= g@citrix.com]
Sent: 07 July 2014 18:06
To: private@cloudstack.apa= che.org; marketing@c= loudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our tr= ademark?

++1

My only question would be what type of skills is necessary to take on this = work and do we have that skill set and time within the PMC. =C2=A0But almos= t anything is better than what we have now.

Thanks for driving this Chip!

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chipchilders@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 9:04 AM
> To: marketing@cloud= stack.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our > trademark?
>
> (private@cloudstack.a= pache.org and trademarks@apach= e.org have been
> BCC'ed so they are aware I have started this discussion on marketi= ng@)
>
> Hi all,
>
> An opportunity has been presented to us to allow the CloudStack PMC to=
> directly manage our trademark. =C2=A0I wanted to get a discussion goin= g
> 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 managem= ent).
> FWIW, I'm a strong +1 to taking on this responsibility as a projec= t.
>
> As background for those that might not have it, today's trademark<= br> > 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<= br> > 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<= br> > how our security team works. =C2=A0The security@cloudstack.apache.org email
> list is responsible for handling all inbound vulnerability reports, > and working to correct them with the appropriate committers. =C2=A0The=
> security@apache.org list me= mbers are automatically included in our
> list, so that they can provide oversight and step in to help / advise<= br> > when necessary. =C2=A0I expect something similar will occur for tradem= ark
> management questions. =C2=A0I 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<= br> > process beyond a single individual. =C2=A0IMO, we need to be sure that= our
> approach to management of approvals is similarly able to scale within<= br> > the project itself
> (i.e.: I'm against a single individual being the one to have to al= ways
> 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. =C2=A0I al= so
> expect that we would modify our project bylaws [3] to provide for a > clear mechanism for trademark approval. =C2=A0Last, we would perform a= PMC
> vote that signifies that we want to take on this responsibility to the= board.
>
> So, comments? =C2=A0I'm looking for comments from anyone in the co= mmunity
> here, especially if you are someone that asks for approvals today. =C2= =A0We
> want to make it easy to get approval if the policy is being followed,<= br> > 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 th= ey
> match up with everyone's opinions.
>
> -chip
>
> [1] http://cloudstack.apache.org/trademark-guidelines.html
> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
> [3] http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack relat= ed services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-desi= gn-and-build//>
CSForge =E2=80=93 rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>=
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/&g= t;
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/clouds= tack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-traini= ng/>

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended s= olely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or o= pinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily rep= resent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the int= ended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon = its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if y= ou believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a compa= ny incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a c= ompany incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue = Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil= and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a register= ed trademark.

--e89a8fb1f33ca844c104fd9dcd20--