incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re:
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:57:34 GMT
Thanks Shane. We'll work on a separate thread to clear up the branding
issues of this page, so that we don't have to change the URL again.

On 22 October 2012 15:04, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:

> (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
>>     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


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message