Sorry, arriving late to email today. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:56:15PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:53 -0500, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600, > > Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for > >> life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it? > > > > There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't > documented > > yet. > > > > Off the record, since yes, it is not documented (very well or at all); > > - all previously approved spins (for Fedora N) go back to status > "Incomplete" or "Development" after Fedora N's General Availability and for > the development cycle of Fedora N+1 > > - formally, the spin goes through the entire process again, including > "Review by Spins SIG" and including "Trademark approval by Board" > > - informally, this means that the board would not need to (re-)approve a > spin's trademark usage, if there's not at all that many changes -after all, > it's mostly tweaking the spin a little further, implementing new features > in the development cycle of Fedora N+1, etc, rather then rebuilding the > spin from the ground up and doing all kinds of nasty changes. > > Now, what is considered a major change or what is considered "too many > changes" in order for the recurring trademark approval to need to pass the > board once more, is not set in stone. The Spins SIG obviously has a policy > of "when in doubt, ask board". And that seems completely reasonable to me. > As an example, we have the Electronic Labs spin; it's changing it's base > desktop environment from KDE to GNOME (by means of including the > -desktop.ks instead of the -kde.ks). > > The Spins SIG at this moment considers this a major change, but since the > basis of the change is still an approved and "permanent" spin, we don't > expect the board to require (re-)approval of the spin's trademark usage. > > Does this make sense and if so, does it make sense to document it as such? > > If not, what are we overlooking? Yes to both. > >> 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the > >> Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin? > > I guess the above (or the answers to the above) would also (partly) answer > this question. As you noted Jeroen, there isn't a hard and fast rule because we think the Spins SIG has the ability to discern what's a major (or arguably major) change. The Board retains the responsibility of approving trademark usage, and could require a resubmission when deemed necessary. But in most cases questions can be resolved here fairly quickly. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
