From general-return-28482-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Jun 1 01:08:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F159D48D1 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 01:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5742 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jun 2011 01:08:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 5442 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jun 2011 01:08:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 5434 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jun 2011 01:08:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:08:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [68.116.39.62] (HELO rectangular.com) (68.116.39.62) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:08:17 +0000 Received: from marvin by rectangular.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QRZmS-0007RY-Ah for general@incubator.apache.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:59:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:59:28 -0700 From: Marvin Humphrey To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Podling "publicity" guidelines and release announcements Message-ID: <20110601005928.GA28539@rectangular.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Greets, I'm confused about when this directive applies: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#activities Publicity activities Podlings MUST coordinate with the Apache Public Relations Committee on all publicity activities by a podling. The open source space can be difficult to negotiate even for experienced professionals. The Apache Public Relations Committee understands this space and it is in the best interests of all that they are consulted. As the Lucy podling prepares to make our inaugural release, we're planning on sending out notifications to a few places: * perlmonks.org * perlbuzz.com * A few Perl-Mongers regional email lists, e.g. the Portland Perl Mongers. By my read of that branding policy page, these notifications would seem to qualify as "publicity activities", and require that we clear our release announcement with the PRC. And yet, I don't recall seeing a lot of discussion about such things on general@incubator.a.o in the last year, while many product releases have been made. Searching backwards for "publicity" in the archives, I found a post from Jukka Zitting about CouchDB's initial Incubator release from 2008 that seems germane. http://markmail.org/message/iwxdlyf75vkz277t On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: On Jun 24, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > > Do I have to run them past someone? > > > Yes, the PRC at apache dot org needs to approve all announcements. Press releases yes, release announcements no. If PRC has the cycles I guess they wouldn't mind reviewing also important release announcements, but so far I have only seen the PRC asserting oversight over formal press releases. Also this, earlier in the thread, from Paul Freemantle: http://markmail.org/message/x7aaesdo4wnl3v7b You should send the announcement to the anno...@apache.org mailing list, and otherwise its a good idea to list it on some general sites like slashdot, infoq, tss, ohloh, etc. But that is all up to you. In the end, it looks like the CouchDB folks, as represented by Noah Slater, went to the PRC after all. My rough takeaway is that because this is Lucy's inaugural release and we're planning on sending out announcements via some non-Apache venues, we're in a borderline situation. Our release resembles a product launch, but it's an 0.1.0 release, not 1.0.0, and we're targeting lower-key channels consumed by developers rather than IT management. My inclination is to just move forward without going to the PRC for now, but consider requesting PRC review when we e.g. launch a 1.0.0 stable release or graduate from the Incubator, situations which might justify a more aggressive marketing campaign. Does that sound reasonable? Cheers, Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org