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: Notes on branding
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2016 01:43:10 GMT
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.


> If the consensus is that the guidelines need to change, why is an audit
> occurring before the actual establishment of said guidelines? If the
> guidelines are not changing, why is an audit occurring which applies
> undocumented criteria?
>

Now that we have a written list of who's doing what, I want to start
additional discussion threads to figure out what changes should go in.  The
current verbiage on the website doesn't make much sense.  I personally like
to refer to RFC 2119 for must/should interpretation [3].  I still hold to
these terms when looking at the recorded list.

At the same time, I want to make sure we're providing proper guidance to
all parties that may be look at the podling website.  We often have
licensing issues in releases going out.  If its hard for me to find this
out, we may need to refine policy.  The disclaimer (in my opinion and only
my opinion) isn't something that should be in the footer, as its not a
license or notice about the website but about the project's overall status.

[3]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119


>
> Thanks,
>
> - Mike
>
> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BrandingAuditJune2016
> [2]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/acf796a286ed8202185b2a3b3509389630f5c833982e7b857ce3ab12@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#logos
>

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