Mailing-List: contact marketing-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: marketing@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com
 designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140707160405.GH3402@Chips-MacBook-Air.local>
References: <20140707160405.GH3402@Chips-MacBook-Air.local>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 12:42:02 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAKQbXgDFA0Aadym4K2OYj6eNZbBHeZ4Z+LCR=NM0HKLm6A+Dgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our
 trademark?
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
To: marketing@cloudstack.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11348c122b1bf904fdb3c93c

--001a11348c122b1bf904fdb3c93c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

To be absolutely clear, the PMC would be responsible for ensuring all
trademark use conforms with foundation policy. The PMC will not be able to
authorize any use that is not clearly defined in existing policies. In such
situations the PMC would still need to liaise with trademarks@.

Ross
On 7 Jul 2014 17:04, "Chip Childers" <chipchilders@apache.org> wrote:

> (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
>

--001a11348c122b1bf904fdb3c93c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">To be absolutely clear, the PMC would be responsible for ens=
uring all trademark use conforms with foundation policy. The PMC will not b=
e able to authorize any use that is not clearly defined in existing policie=
s. In such situations the PMC would still need to liaise with trademarks@.<=
/p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">Ross</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 7 Jul 2014 17:04, &quot;Chip Childers&quot; &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:chipchilders@apache.org">chipchilders@apache.org</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(<a href=3D"mailto:private@cloudstack.apache.org">private@cloudstack.apache=
.org</a> and <a href=3D"mailto:trademarks@apache.org">trademarks@apache.org=
</a> have been<br>
BCC&#39;ed so they are aware I have started this discussion on marketing@)<=
br>
<br>
Hi all,<br>
<br>
An opportunity has been presented to us to allow the CloudStack PMC to<br>
directly manage our trademark. =A0I wanted to get a discussion going about<=
br>
(1) do we want to do this, and (2) if so what process would we follow<br>
for it. =A0What I need out of this thread is a gauge of consensus, and<br>
input into our approach (if you agree with the idea of taking over<br>
direct management). FWIW, I&#39;m a strong +1 to taking on this<br>
responsibility as a project.<br>
<br>
As background for those that might not have it, today&#39;s trademark<br>
guidelines (for the project [1] and the foundation [2]) explicitly state<br=
>
a number of instances where the VP Brand Management for the foundation<br>
must explicitly approve certain requests (including, for example,<br>
non-software goods with a project logo).<br>
<br>
Discussion within the ASF board and trademarks committee has lead to a<br>
conclusion that (at least) CloudStack&#39;s PMC could take on primary<br>
responsibility for management of it&#39;s brand. The specifics of how this<=
br>
will occur (board resolution or trademark policy changes) are still<br>
under discussion.<br>
<br>
The current general opinion of those groups is that trademark management<br=
>
by a PMC like CloudStack would be done in a way similar to how our<br>
security team works. =A0The <a href=3D"mailto:security@cloudstack.apache.or=
g">security@cloudstack.apache.org</a> email list is<br>
responsible for handling all inbound vulnerability reports, and working<br>
to correct them with the appropriate committers. =A0The<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:security@apache.org">security@apache.org</a> list members=
 are automatically included in our list,<br>
so that they can provide oversight and step in to help / advise when<br>
necessary. =A0I expect something similar will occur for trademark<br>
management questions. =A0I also expect that we will see the<br>
foundation-wide trademark policy [2] be patched to account for PMC&#39;s<br=
>
owning &quot;approvals&quot; related to their specific marks.<br>
<br>
One of the reasons for this shift is the desire to scale the approval<br>
process beyond a single individual. =A0IMO, we need to be sure that our<br>
approach to management of approvals is similarly able to scale within<br>
the project itself (i.e.: I&#39;m against a single individual being the one=
<br>
to have to always say &quot;approved&quot;.)<br>
<br>
If we agree in principle, I would expect that we would make changes to<br>
our project&#39;s trademark policy [1] to clarify this decision making<br>
authority and our process / approach for getting approvals. =A0I also<br>
expect that we would modify our project bylaws [3] to provide for a<br>
clear mechanism for trademark approval. =A0Last, we would perform a PMC<br>
vote that signifies that we want to take on this responsibility to the<br>
board.<br>
<br>
So, comments? =A0I&#39;m looking for comments from anyone in the community<=
br>
here, especially if you are someone that asks for approvals today. =A0We<br=
>
want to make it easy to get approval if the policy is being followed,<br>
yet ensure that everyone is using our brand correctly.<br>
<br>
I&#39;ll wait a few days, and if nobody else proposes patches<br>
to the relevant project documents, I&#39;ll propose them myself and see if<=
br>
they match up with everyone&#39;s opinions.<br>
<br>
-chip<br>
<br>
[1] <a href=3D"http://cloudstack.apache.org/trademark-guidelines.html" targ=
et=3D"_blank">http://cloudstack.apache.org/trademark-guidelines.html</a><br=
>
[2] <a href=3D"http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttp://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/</a><br>
[3] <a href=3D"http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html" target=3D"_blank">=
http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--001a11348c122b1bf904fdb3c93c--