incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Notes on branding
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2016 02:11:56 GMT
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:43 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:12 PM Mike Jumper <mike.jumper@guac-dev.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Gunnar Tapper <tapper.gunnar@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Let me offer up a concrete example since I struggle with the issue of
>>> > branding: http://trafodion.apache.org/documentation.html
>>> >
>>> > I chose the following approach based on input from out mentor Stack:
>>> >
>>> > - Added (incubator) to the menu bar
>>> > - Added the incubator logo on the top of the page
>>> > - Placed the disclaimer on the bottom of the page
>>> >
>>> > I did you placeholders in the documentation for things like mailing list,
>>> > project names, and cross-documentation links to make renaming a matter of
>>> > updating pom.xml files and rebuilding.
>>> >
>>> > However, I did NOT put incubator disclaimers or even an incubator status
>>> in
>>> > the documentation simply because it felt like over communication of
>>> > incubator status. As you'll see, the Apache license language is included
>>> in
>>> > PDF and web-book formats but not the incubator disclaimer. I don't know
>>> > whether I made the right choice. If I didn't, then I'd think that the
>>> > guidance should state that web pages and documentation should include
>>> BOTH
>>> > the ASL text and the incubator-disclaimer text.
>>> >
>>> > I hope this helps with the discussion.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Gunnar
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Mike Jumper <mike.jumper@guac-dev.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey <
>>> marvin@rectangular.com
>>> > >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Greg Chase <greg@gregchase.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > The branding guidelines do not address feedback such as "logo
in
>>> > > footer"
>>> > > > or
>>> > > > > "disclaimer is buried deep or below the fold".
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Incubation disclaimers are intended to be substantive.  They are
not
>>> > CYA
>>> > > > legal
>>> > > > boilerplate that can be are buried in fine print. The intent is
to
>>> > > > communicate
>>> > > > (effectively!) to consumers that a project is incubating. That
way,
>>> > > people
>>> > > > will know that certain caveats apply:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >     Apache Foo is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache
>>> > Software
>>> > > >     Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator.  Incubation
>>> is
>>> > > >     required of all newly accepted projects until a further review
>>> > > > indicates
>>> > > >     that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making
>>> > process
>>> > > > have
>>> > > >     stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF
>>> > projects.
>>> > > >     While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of
the
>>> > > >     completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that
the
>>> > > > project
>>> > > >     has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > What would be best is if podlings just understood that intent,
and as
>>> > and
>>> > > > took
>>> > > > it upon themselves to ensure that their incubating status was
>>> > > communicated
>>> > > > effectively -- in websites, in release announcements, etc.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > Can you cite, as an example, an incubating project's website where
you
>>> > > would consider the incubating status effectively communicated, and
the
>>> > > disclaimer not buried?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Gunnar
>>> > *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
>>> >
>>>
>>> John and/or Roman, can you comment specifically on how the results of the
>>> branding audit [1] should be interpreted by the podlings concerned, and
>>> (please) provide some concrete examples of what podlings should and
>>> shouldn't do with respect to the audit?
>>>
>>
>> I would say that for now, podlings should take no action unless they are
>> contacted directly to fix something about their branding.  I jumped the gun
>> a little on contacting a few podlings that seemed to be way out, but were
>> not actually against our current branding guidelines.  According to the
>> list I put together, there are eight that are not in compliance at all with
>> the established policies.  That policy being that you must include the
>> disclaimer, and it must be worded in a specific way.
>>
>> I asked a few podlings to add the incubator logo.  This was mostly because
>> most links to the podling were not using the incubator domain.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Where is the threshold between "Present, in footer, smaller font" and the
>>> much more colorful "Buried in footer"? Are not footers generally expected
>>> to be in a smaller font?
>>>
>>
>> Not saying that at all.  The thing I'm trying to weigh is how easily can I
>> discern whether this project is fully vetted or not.
>>
>> If you take Wave for example, while its at the bottom of the page, their
>> entire page fits within the fold.  If you take Guacamole as another
>> example, the placement makes it read as if it were website legal mumbo when
>> that's not the intent.  The disclaimer isn't a disclaimer about the podling
>> website.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Given that it sounds like the footer is generally-accepted sensible place
>>> for the disclaimer [2], and that the branding guidelines do not currently
>>> strictly require the Incubator logo [3], I'm not sure what the audit is
>>> trying to say at this point.
>>>
>>>
>> The audit is to document where we actually stand on the branding asks
>> across the podlings as defined today.  There seems to be some broad
>> statements being made that everyone's out of compliance.  I wanted to put
>> it in black and white (with blue headers now thanks to Sergio) where each
>> podling actually stands.
>>
>> Think of it as less of a software vendor audit and more like a comic book
>> collector audit.  I wanted to write down what was in the collection.
>>
>> Understand that I did this all of my own free will.  It was not conceived
>> as a private IPMC discussion.
>
> I don't doubt for a second that this was well-intentioned, but from a
> mentor's perspective that may already be guiding a podling through
> what - to them - seems like
> overly-complex-not-well-documented-nor-understood "rules" having [even
> a well-intentioned] IPMC member nit-pick over undocumented pet-peeves
> isn't helpful.  I'd prefer that we, IPMC, hash out stuff then given
> the mentors a chance to work through it since the relationship is
> there - otherwise, it can come across as IPMC sniping...

First of all, let me just say that I absolutely appreciate the effort that John
is putting into making sure that podlings website appearance reflects their
status in ASF as effectively as possible.

That said, I also think that we're missing a few tools that can help podlings
achieve that and in that sense I can certainly appreciate Tim's frustration.

Among these tools is an effective way to graphically reflect the status of the
podling without penalizing the visual appeal of their websites. I see that John
has opened a separate thread on that -- so I'll reply there. In general, though,
I think we may actually need more of a comprehensive style guide to make
it as frictionless for podlings to comply as possible.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message