Re: New trademark approval policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 14.07.2011, 08:37 +0200 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
>> 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.
>
> Two more weeks have passed. Was there any progress?
>
> jsmith: What about Toshio's question?
>
At today's IRC meeting we approved two things that bear on these questions:

about scope:  we made explicit that the policy does not apply to
updates of a spin, only to new spins:

"""
No reapproval of a spin for trademark is needed when an existing spin
is updated (for instance, for a new Fedora release). Spins SIG can
still approve or veto an updated spin but that's outside of trademark
approval.
"""

We also decided to punt on implementation of this policy for F16 for
two reasons: 1) we've failed to get the criteria needed to satisfy
this documented by the SIGs.
2) I think there's a general feeling on the Board that no one is happy
with the amount of work a spin is required to go through to satisfy
this
3)  and that tying these steps to the trademark approval process (as
opposed to letting the spins SIG say yes or no to spins based on this
sort of thing) may be the wrong place to implement this.

For F16, we've gone with this
"spin creators directly ask the board for approval for $whatever for
this cycle, and the board go and ask the SIGs if they have
time/interest in writing any guidelines for their approvals in
f17/beyond".

In other words, Spins SIG continues to decide on what spins are ready.
 They hand spins to the Board that Spin SIG thinks should be official
spins and need trademark approval.  We'll do our best to approve those
in a timely manner.

For F17 (but starting now... otherwise we'll end up in this same
position for F17) we'll be trying to revise the guidelines to be more
explicit about what criteria we will or won't use to approve a spin
for usage of the trademark and if we have additional concerns about QA
of spins, where those concerns should be addressed.  If we can't come
up with revisions that we all agree on, then one of the Board Members
will have to step up to see that the present policy implementation
details are properly documented for spin creators to follow for F17.

I'll try to ride herd on the meta-process of making sure we have
workable policy/guidance for Spins SIG and spin creators.  Depending
on how our attempt to revise the trademark process goes, I may or may
not drive the process of getting the implementation details of the
policy itself (currently, that role is being filled by jsmith).

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Outreach]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora KDE]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux Audio Users]

  Powered by Linux