On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > back in April the board approved a new spins approval policy [1]. I have > put that proposal into the wiki [2] but AFAIK other than that nothing > has happened. > > I hereby ask the board to > 1. appoint SIGs responsible for various trademark approvals > 2. contact these SIGs and ask them to come up with a list of items > or a SOP for approval > 3. supervise and coordinate the creation of the checklists/SOPs > 4. collect the answers from the SIGs and put them into the wiki > 5. clarify the relationship of this proposal and the media handout > requirements. According to Jared they would replace the media > handout requirements > 6. clarify the scope of the new policy. While the old media handout > requirements only covered physical media for distribution and > had nothing to do with the spins process this new policy only > deals with what exactly? For example I am sure we want to > involve the design team for media for distribution, but I don't > think they need to approve a spin that has no artwork other than > the one on the spins page. > > Note: The board's trac is only open for board members and individual > tickets are visible for the people who filed them. This being said I > wonder if it is really the right place for a transparent process like a > trademark approval. > > Regards, > Christoph > > [1] > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2011-04-26/fedora_board.2011-04-26-16.00.log.html#l-32 > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_approval_policy > > _______________________________________________ > advisory-board mailing list > advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board > Hi Christoph, Let me first apologize for the large amount of silence that has followed this email. I have been thinking a lot about the policies around trademarks, spin approval, media handout, etc of late. And sadly I think we've done it wrong. (I am a guilty party here too I should note.) I fear we (and I am part of that we) have erected a process around getting things done and that process is overly onerous to the point of the process largely be ignored or alternatively being such a stumbling block that things fail to happen. To provide some anecdotal information, I look at how Linode had Fedora 15 images up and ready to be deployed 2 days after release[0], they didn't ask our permission (and didn't need to, there are exceptions in the Fedora trademark guidelines that allow them to call it Fedora, even use the logos, provided it contains only Fedora software.) didn't ask for our help, etc. I contrast that with the EC2 work that Fedora has been trying to do internally, and realize that if the work had been done by Amazon or anyone else that they could have skipped RelEng, QA, Design, and Board approval, and uploaded Fedora 15 AMIs, called them Fedora, used the logos, etc provided they only used Fedora software in the AMI. Instead, there are no 'official' Fedora 15 AMIs yet, and we are 2+ months down the road. It's not a technical problem that's blocking this. (I know because I am using a Cloud-SIG generated AMI for Fedora 15 on EC2, it's just not 'official') Admittedly the Virtual Images and Appliances exception is far broader than the other exceptions in the guidelines. That's led me to this bit of thinking: It should NEVER be harder to get things done inside of Fedora than it is to get the same things done outside Fedora. Are things going to be perfect?? No, but they aren't perfect now. We have a process in place that people either actively flout or they become bogged down trying to comply with and fail to get anything done. I know I am not directly responding to your questions, but I wonder if our approach in general isn't flawed. Thoughts, comments, flames, welcome :) --David [0] http://blog.linode.com/2011/05/26/fedora-15/ _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
