incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Websites at podling.apache.org
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:41:51 GMT
So... I stumbled upon this as every time I send someone a link to
freemarker, we get bounced all over the place (I've been a long time
freemarker user).

Where do things stand on this right now?  We let groovy keep its old URL.
Is it a major problem that both URLs work? Is it a problem if only the old
URL works? (btw, from what I remember, podling.a.o used to not work so I'm
not sure what changed).

FWIW, I saw tamaya listed on here. Tamaya has the incubator logo, so if you
feel its not prominent could you explain why its not prominent?

John

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:27 PM Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Niall Pemberton
> > <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Attached a patch to:
> > >> > 1. change from poding.i.a.o to poding.a.o
> > >> > 2. Require the incubator logo and that it be prominent
> >
> > Thanks, Niall.
> >
> > For the time being, I'm -1 and going to play devil's advocate, but I'm
> > willing
> > to be persuaded.
> >
> > > https://paste.apache.org/nQTK
> >
> > OK, now the can of worms opens up...
> >
> > Compliance with the existing podling website branding requirements is
> > poor[1].
> >
>
> From your review 13 compliant, 13 have 1 Issue, 10 have >1 issue. So I
> would disagree with the characterization of poor. You could say 72% one
> issue or less - maybe thats good!!
>
>
> > What good is adding another requirement for people to ignore[2]?
> >
>
> If we want podlings to have incubator branding, then IMO a logo would have
> far more effect than a URL.
>
> But I don't think non-compliance is a good argument against - should be
> judged on branding criteria
>
>
>
> > If the website is at `podling.apache.org`, then why not the mailing
> lists,
> > too?
> >
> > Some podlings find labeling releases "incubating" inconvenient for both
> > techncical and social reasons.  Why not dispense with that requirement as
> > well?
> >
> > Some podlings find the requirement to brand themselves as "incubating"
> > inconvenient for marketing materials (including the podling website)
> > because
> > the public may interpret it as implying an immature codebase.  Arguably,
> it
> > will help our podlings succeed if we simply stop differentiating them
> from
> > TLPs.  So why do we distinguish podlings from TLPs at all?
> >
>
> Good points, I won't argue against them and the pTLP route imposes no such
> branding requirements. All I'm saying is that *if* we're going to impose
> *incubator* branding, then IMO the url is probably pretty ineffective and
> not a big change and my proposal to make the incubator logo more prominent
> would be better from a branding perspective. Having said that, I don't see
> much point in the *incubator* branding requirement, was just trying to work
> within the existing policy.
>
>
>
> >
> > Finally, to what extent does the Incubator have the responsibility to
> > involve
> > other entities at Apache (e.g. Marketing, Brand Management, Board) in
> > decisions to weaken podling branding requirements?
> >
>
> Yes, I think the brand VP should give an opinion. Presumably there was some
> involvement when the policy was put in place.
>
>
> >
> > My perspective on all these questions is that a balance has been struck
> > between inconvenience to the podling, the right of the the general public
> > to
> > know that a podling is incubating (and thus may put out releases that
> don't
> > adhere to all aspects of Apache policy, may not have a mature community,
> > etc.), and the reputatation of the Foundation.  And therefore, reducing
> > inconvenience to the podling, while a worthy goal, is not sufficient
> > justification on its own to disrupt that balance.
> >
> > Better to seek out other ways to reduce podling inconvenience -- e.g. is
> it
> > possible to carve out some exception for Geode templates?
> >
>
> Good point. Lets see how this goes.
>
> Niall
>
>
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > [1] http://s.apache.org/3NU
> > [2] This is a tangential point, but I'm not enthused about replacing a
> >     faceless technical mechanism with a policy that requires individuals
> to
> >     serve as enforcers.  I think that injects a negative dynamic into the
> >     community.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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