incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re:
Date Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:04:30 GMT
(Please note the distribution lists used)

First off, apologies for not weighing in sooner; it seemed last week 
that a simple rename was going to be done, which was a great place to 
start, so I figured the community could either speak up or provide some 
more details.  And thank you both for recognizing and working to assuage 
each others' frustration.  8-)

One question for my edification: is this github repo primarily bits of 
software that might be compiled into Apache Cloudstack directly (i.e. 
that Foo Co. is likely to take Cloudstack, take a bit of this repo, and 
build and sell some service directly based on the combined software 
product)?  OR is this primarily for external add-ons or administrative 
bits that are used to build or maintain independent services that would 
live atop Cloudstack?


Simply the name of the github repo is not necessarily a trademark issue. 
  Fundamentally, trademarks are about preventing *user* confusion.  I.e. 
trademarks are designed to ensure that an informed user (in this case, 
presumably a dev or sysadmin who wants to run a cloud) understands the 
source of goods - here, the Apache Cloudstack software product, which 
comes from the ASF and the Apache Cloudstack podling.

Thus just the name of the github repo is only partly relevant to it's 
trademark 'importance' to the ASF.  What's important is how the repo is 
presented to users, both in terms of the homepage and overview, and 
especially in terms of any obvious "download this product" pages.

Without having read all of this thread yet or understanding exactly what 
kind of software is there, my first unofficial reaction would be that if 
the (P)PMC doesn't explicitly disapprove of the 
"" name, then it would be OK from the 
trademarks@ point of view as long as it is clearly branded to 
differentiate itself from Apache Cloudstack.  For starters, the URL 
should generally comply with the domain name policy:

(Note, the domain name policy is actually about domain.names, not 
/paths, however it has the clearest set of rules & rationales)

Make sense?

- Shane

On 10/20/2012 5:17 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Thanks for your note, David. I am sorry for not responding to the email
> sooner. And I am sorry that I have caused you some frustration. You will
> note that I have not given a -1 on the name, or even said that we cannot
> do it.
> (Unless I explicitly put my mentor hat on, you can assume everything I
> say is my personal opinion and not me "handing down" policy. I've only
> been here five years, and I am learning the ropes in much the same way.)
> You are perhaps right that this name is nominative use. I think I would
> be more convinced of that if the rest of the problems were sorted out.
> My email was sent with the assumption that this name change was all you
> had proposed to do. Clearly, that is not good enough, and you seem to
> agree with me on that point. So perhaps there is no problem here.
> I also understand and agree with your reasoning that lazy consensus on
> the actual name itself was a fine assumption to make given the lack of
> response. Though, of course, lazy consensus does not mean members of the
> community cannot voice their opinions after the fact, for whatever
> reason. (My reason being inattentiveness, and not just trying to
> be awkward.)
> There is a good chance that when Shane picks this up he, in his
> typically good natured and informed perspective, confirms that
> "cloudstack-extra" is okay as long as the rest of the page is fixed up
> to indicate provenance  and clearly set expectation for users, and
> clearly indicate that "CloudStack" is a trademark of the Apache
> CloudStack project. In which case, we don't have a problem. (Assuming
> those things are done.)
> And my comment about my doing my job as a mentor poorly was a reaction
> to what I perceived as you saying "if you care so much, you do it." And
> the reason that is a problem for me is that my goal is to get the
> community to care about these things, so that I don't have to. If that
> makes sense. Though having said that, I am also interested in
> contributing to the project in a wider sense. But I would feel more
> comfortable doing that when I am confident the stuff I am doing would
> happen anyway.
> Sorry if I've caused frustration, again. I can understand why you would
> feel frustrated. That was not my intention.
> On 20 October 2012 21:43, David Nalley <
> <>> wrote:
>     On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Noah Slater <
>     <>> wrote:
>      > On 20 October 2012 18:10, David Nalley <
>     <>> wrote:
>      >
>      >> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Noah Slater
>     < <>> wrote:
>      >> > Hmm, "cloudstack-extras" seems to me like something that the
>     Apache
>      >> > CloudStack project is providing. I was hoping for Shane's
>     input on this,
>      >> > which is why I didn't say anything after looping him in.
>      >>
>      >> This sat for over a week with nary a comment.
>      >
>      >
>      > I volunteer my time to this project. Any contributions I make are
>     on my own
>      > time. My employer does not pay me to contribute. CloudStack is
>      > an extremely high traffic project and I am doing the best I can to
>      > contribute to it.
>     Let me say that I appreciate your contributions - much of our
>     readiness to release is because of your tireless efforts to point out
>     our problems - please don't take my frustration as frustration with
>     all of your contributions, or even that I disagree with you.
>      >
>      >
>      >> I don't mean to vent my
>      >> frustration, but if you thought there was a problem why not say
>      >> something
>      >
>      >
>      > I did.
>     Forgive me for disagreeing - but there was nothing remotely negative
>     about your response.
>     You said you were looping in someone else - expanding the audience,
>     not a bad thing - there was no indication that you thought that.
>     One of the things you indicated was problematic in your earlier mail
>     was the account name
>     <> - which was all I was
>     attempting to solve at this time. The rest still remain issues - but I
>     will discuss those in a bit in a followup to your earlier email.
>      >
>      > I CCed Shane (our VP of Brand Management) because I wanted his
>     input. I
>      > brought up the concern previously on the mailing list, and
>     nothing much
>      > seemed to happen. This time, I thought I would loop Shane in to
>     clarify any
>      > questions. I guess he was busy too.
>      >
>      >
>      >> How long should I have waited?
>      >
>      >
>      > I don't know. But following up was another option. Sometimes
>     emails get
>      > lost in the noise. After 6 days you posted a note to say you were
>     going to
>      > go ahead and name the repos. You assumed lazy consensus, but I
>     think my
>      > previous notes to the list should have been indication enough
>     that we had
>      > not established consensus.
>     This particular action (renaming the account) was taken in response to
>     your referenced email wherein you complained about the name.
>     Your note was not a -1 (and had it been, per
> you should
>     have pointed out what the problems were with the account name choice
>     or offered an alternative. Your email in response to my proposal of
>     cloudstack-extras did neither of those, and no one from trademarks@
>     responded negatively either. How is one not supposed to assume that
>     there is lazy consensus to change the name to cloudstack-extras out of
>     that?) How is the account name cloudstack-extras not a nominative use
>     of the term CloudStack and pointing out that it is 'extra' the
>     definition of which means outside or in addition to. With the
>     exception of the CloudStack repo contained therein, all of the
>     included code is something outside of our in addition to CloudStack.
>     Every use of the word CloudStack is not a trademark violation - even
>     if it is in software.
>      >
>      >
>      >> I could have left this as
>      >> <> and not
>     spent the time and energy to make the
>      >> move, blog about it, notify the many people who this move
>     affects etc.
>      >>
>      >
>      > This isn't really an option, as I have outlined before.
>     You are missing my point, I want the problem solved. I want folks to
>     realize that CloudStack is at the ASF and for their to be no brand
>     confusion. What I don't want to do is waste my time when I propose,
>     and then try and fix some of the problems you outline. I am willing to
>     do the work to get this done.
>      >
>      >
>      >> While I seek to make sure we do what is best for the project, it's
>      >> exhausting to try and comply with the demands, only to propose
>     things,
>      >> get zero feedback, make the changes, publicize the changes, and then
>      >> days later get feedback that it isn't acceptable.
>      >
>      >
>      > This is an unfair characterisation of my involvement. I have not
>     made any
>      > "demands" of you. I gave repeated, and detailed feedback on this
>     issue. But
>      > this seems to have been ignored.
>      >
>     Not at all - this was actually an attempt to fix one of the github
>     issues. It wasn't an attempt to fix them all - it was an attempt to
>     change the name. In followup to that mail - I sent a mail to the list
>     saying I was going to do the work to change the name, I tossed out a
>     proposal and asked if there were any objections to the name. The only
>     email in response was one of you indicating you were copying
>     trademarks@ - otherwise nothing negative.
>      >
>      >> To that end, I've
>      >> made you an admin on that github project - please take whatever
>     action
>      >> suits you.
>      >>
>      >
>      > This is a disappointing response. Of course, I will take no such
>     action.
>      > Despite the fact that I am not prepared to unilaterally change
>     something as
>      > important as this Github organisation without all the facts, my
>     aim is to
>      > help Apache CloudStack adjust to Apache. If the response to my
>     guidance is
>      > "oh well, you better fix it then" then I am obviously doing a
>     very poor job.
>     My response is this:
>     I tried to remedy something you saw as a problem (the github account
>     name). I proposed a solution on list. I waited a week. I saw no
>     negative response to the name. I changed it. Two days after I changed
>     it you come back saying that is still a problem, but not suggesting
>     any alternatives for identifying a collection of repos for things that
>     are useful to CloudStack. I don't have any more suggestions to remedy
>     this.  I do wish to empower you as a member and participant of this
>     community, who is doing work in this community, to not be blocked in
>     implementing a solution.
>      >
>      >
>      >> > There are still several problems with this page:
>      >> >
>      >> >    - The "cloudstack-extras" name seems confusing, as stated
>     above. The
>      >> >    Apache extras is fine, because we are providing it. But
>     Apache has no
>      >> >    oversight for this repository, so it should clearly
>     indicate it's
>      >> >    provenance. (i.e. Citrix tools for CloudStack — which would,
>      >> incidentally,
>      >> >    be a much better name. Perhaps change it to "Citrix"?)
>      >>
>      >> We toyed with the idea of Citrix - and I can probably jump
>     through the
>      >> hoops for that as well, but Citrix would also have issues with this,
>      >> as virtually none of the software contained therein belongs to
>     Citrix,
>      >> nor do they really have control over it. This is largely code
>     without
>      >> a single unifying owner. The only commonality is that it is
>     focused on
>      >> CloudStack. Most of the items contained therein have been
>     developed by
>      >> people working on and around cloudstack. For instance,,
>      >> Opscode, and Enstratus employees wrote knife-cloudstack with no
>     Citrix
>      >> contributions whatsoever.
>      >>
>      >
>      > I don't know what to suggest then. Perhaps "cloudstack-extras" is
>     not such
>      > a big problem. I will defer to Shane, who has way more experience
>     with this
>      > than I do.
>     This is essentially where I am at - I have no idea for a better name
>     that doesn't involve the word cloudstack for identifying this.
>     The remaining issues still do exist, and they still need to be solved,
>     and eventually we will.
> --
> NS

View raw message