incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Notes on branding
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2016 01:50:41 GMT
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:38 PM Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:47 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:19 PM Greg Chase <greg@gregchase.com> 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".
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except podlings are now being told they are "not being effective
> enough"
> > > according to an unspecified standard.
> > >
> >
> > I can't even begin to tell you how much of this I agree with.  While I
> can
> > sympathize with the IPMC members who feel this way, at the end of the day
> > its on the incubator as a whole to explain the expectations.  This is
> true
> > of both long standing members who have been here, to new members, to even
> > members who have left and come back.  It needs to be communicated.  I see
> > no mention of this on podling reports, no voices being raised.  I have
> > reported on one report thus far that we need clarification from VP TM,
> but
> > no response was received, regarding some changes to PNS's.
> >
>
> Just to come to Geode's defense here - branding was discussed when the
> community put up their website a year ago and two IPMC members (me & Roman)
> thought the current site was sufficient to satisfy incubator branding[1] -
> so we (the IPMC) also need to understand the policy better and provide
> better guidance to podlings.
>

Geode is not out of line in its branding, as defined by the branding
guidelines today.  However, from my point of view, it is hard for me to
understand that Geode may be producing not-fully-compliant releases, due to
the disclaimer's placement and formatting.

Compare with Airflow's website: http://airflow.incubator.apache.org/

They didn't have a disclaimer 48 hours ago.

John



>
> Niall
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/ro7rzmrhcsrpkk2m
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It should be apparent to anyone who groks that intent that websites
> > where
> > > > the
> > > > disclaimers and logos are buried subvert the branding guidelines.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are dealing with new community members. It should not be assumed
> that
> > > something is grokable, especially when it seems there isn't a
> > communicated
> > > consensus.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed 100%.  We don't make sure mentors are aware of these issues.
> > Mentors therefor cannot provide it at a lower level to podlings.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > It seems that we will have to spell things out more aggressively.
> The
> > > new
> > > > language should make it plain that podlings are expected to uphold
> the
> > > > *spirit* of the guidelines, and not treat them as some bs
> technicality
> > to
> > > > work
> > > > around.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Spirits can be hard to grasp.  As I suggested before.  If being
> > > prescriptive is too difficult, then force new podlings into a
> > standardized
> > > web template that meets requirements, and spirt.  This would actually
> > > really simplify the getting started process for new podlings.  Then
> they
> > > can either do something new with their website once they become a TLP,
> or
> > > perhaps at some mid-level of maturity.
> > >
> > >
> > This is where I begin to disagree.  We don't want podlings to just use
> > cookie cutter websites, at least I don't believe we do.  I know I just
> want
> > to see podlings use our guidelines as a bare minimum set of requirements
> > for all of their branding.  This includes websites, docs, and releases.
> > The point of the disclaimer is that there may be licensing issues within
> > the release contents and as a result may not be 100% Apache License
> > compliant.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If podlings don't like the disclaimers, they can hurry up and do the
> > work
> > > > to
> > > > graduate.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are no objections to the disclaimer from Geode.  The only issue
> is
> > > the lack of guidelines and being held to an ungrokable standard.  We
> > > discussed the issue in our community and the response is "So what do we
> > > need to do?"
> > >
> >
>

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