incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder <g.a.lau...@gmail.com>
Subject Brand Usage Guidelines: Hands Off management (Was: May I use "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache Incubator" logos on OpenOffice.org CD)
Date Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:49:56 GMT
On Friday 13 Jan 2012 00:38:44 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 Jan 2012 12:26:59 Rob Weir wrote:

> > 
> > Lets stick with CTR, one thing that history has shown us is that there
> > are a lot of eyes out there, if someone is misusing the brand, it gets
> > back to us pretty fast.  Far too much time is being spent on this sort
> > of nonproductive effort where we could simply be using the eyes of the
> > wider community to keep us in touch.
> 
> That is not current ASF policy.  We currently require explicit
> permission to use the loog. If you want to change policy, I'd
> recommend starting a new thread on that, so your thoughts are not
> buried in this one.

Good Point, done

> 
> As for "far too much time is being spent", I'd draw your attention to
> the fact that this is the first logo request we've received for a CD
> in 6 months, and perhaps only the 4th logo request we've received at
> all.  All our current process requires is lazy consensus, e.g., a 72
> hour opportunity for PPMC members to object.  And then VP, Branding
> permission based on our recommendation.  

I'm talking about the time spent worrying about what people are doing with the 
trademark and logo, screeds of mail on the TOO thing, Shane tied up with an 
email tennis match and much brow beating and hair tearing.  It is becoming 
tiresome and it is distracting from our purpose here.  "Create Software for 
the public good." We are getting into battles that only limit the ability for 
the community  to connect and all for little or no profit, this project will 
live and die on what it produces, not on the use or misuse of the logo.  We 
have to get out of this obselete Corporate mind think.  

Our name is the principle part of the brand, we protect that by producing good 
product that looks after our users needs.  Our highest profile element out in 
the wild is our software on our Users computers, not thousands of billboards, 
or hours of TVCs shoving our Logo in people faces.  Ours is word of mouth or 
string of text, definitely not people being drawn to us by seeing our 
"ubiquitous Logo.

 People usually only get taken once, then they come here and complain and our 
response is:   "It's OK, it'll all be good from here."  That's as good as it 
gets in terms of building a community.

Community distributors will use it anyway once we get CD art decided on and 
published on the wiki.


> ........So this is neither difficult
> nor time consuming.  And if anyone thinks it is, I'm happy to remove
> that objection by volunteering to manage the workflow for this myself
> for this project, something I'm essentially already doing.

It may seem that way now, but that's because noone knows us, we have no 
policies in place, we don't even have any software to distribute.  Gad it 
surprises me that anyone is asking at all right now.  However if you want to 
know where it's heading, check out the Distro and cd-rom lists and ask  Andy 
Shiels and Alex Fisher how "non time consuming" it was.


> 
> > Hands-off worked in the past, sure there were breaches, but in terms of
> > the greater picture the numbers were very small.  The easier we can make
> > it for the brand to be out in the wild the better, if only from a brand
> > recognition point of view.  If we want to have absolute control over how
> > and where the brand is used then it will not get the spread it needs
> > without the expense of paid advertising.
> > 
> > Not much point in having a a brand if we are the only ones looking at it
> > or recognising it.
> 
> That is an argument for giving permission broadly.  It is not an
> argument for giving permission without review.  Think of this as an
> opportunity for engagement with the person or group wanting to use the
> logo.  By asking our permission we're introduced.  We have the
> opportunity to explain our preferred ways to use our branding.  We can
> answer their questions.  We can perhaps point them to other forms of
> the logo,. Maybe we identify ways of cross promoting their activity.
> It opens up a two-way conversation.  It is not a bad thing.

Indeed that's not a bad thing, but I refer again to the CDROM list and then 
point to Eric Raymonds famous Essay for some clues.

Cathedral Builders can force people into a cue, line up at a desk and get 
stamped, you may deal with everyone one on one, but it takes too long and the 
spread is too slow.  

In the Bazaar model you are standing in the crowd
who are all demanding your attention at once, if you try to talk to everyone 
again you'll run out of time, even if you can make yourself heard.  But if you 
make the logo easy to obtain and put up a big sign that displays a few simple 
rules that are easy to adhere to.
For instance:  Always display the web address so that people will eventually 
always get to the real project.  

Of course we never had that rule because, well, the name WAS the web address.
<sarcasm> Good heavens, who would have thought of that, what a brilliant idea!  
we get a result without having to make a rule.</sarcasm> 

The point is the spread becomes faster, exponential in it's growth, but only 
if it's allowed.  Too many control freaks will stifle our growth

To propogate a plant, you can either spend huge amounts a of money on cropping 
machinery and planters or you can be a thistle, throw the seed into the wind 
and let go where it may.  You may lose control but it will cost much less and 
it will spread. 

We don't have any money, we use what is available to us.


Cheers
GL
 

> 
> >> > The old policy, if I recall correctly, was to allow this kind of usage
> >> > and a generic usage for "community activities".
> > 
> > indeed
> > 
> > Cheers
> > GL

Mime
View raw message