On 1 April 2014 16:06, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Breaking this out from the ticket paste)
One of the problems we face with deciding that Fedora is just our
official products is that it makes it harder to figure out how spins fit
in. One of the problems with defining Fedora more widely is that it
makes it difficult to explain what Fedora actually is and guide users to
appropriate downloads. Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way.
.next is an opportunity for Fedora to develop a strong brand image over
a small set of deliverables - Fedora-the-product, if you will. But
Fedora-the-community is much larger than those deliverables. Most of the
discussion we've had has been figuring out how to fit
Fedora-the-community into Fedora-the-product, and I don't think there's
any way to do that without compromising the associated benefits.
How about if we decouple Fedora-the-product and Fedora-the-community?
The obvious model here is Ubuntu, who over time have spawned several
products driven by independent subcommunities. These products are
independently managed but use common respoitories and are tied to the
same overall release schedule, and each has its own strong branding -
Kubuntu even has its own financial backing.
Rather than saying that Fedora-the-product should represent all of our
independent subcommunities, we could allow individual subcommunities to
define their own product definitions, driven by their own branding. For
example, KDE could define separate desktop (Plasma) and mobile (Plasma
Active) products without having to worry about them conflicting with any
other products.
We'd still want some level of overall coordination - for instance,
deciding what's release blocking would still be a wider discussion, but
it might be possible for individual subcommunities to re-release based
on -updates if they can obtain appropriate resources.
The biggest problem I forsee in this situation is the perception that
all other subcommunities are still to some extent second class citizens
compared to the three Fedora products. The counterargument is that it
gives them the opportunity to demonstrate that they're significantly
better in a way that's currently impossible, and that may be enough to
get people to change their minds as to future choices.
I want to start off with that I think this is an excellent idea and one that I would endorse and be excited about. But I can see your first problem being there
The second problem I see is with the standard thorn.. trademarks. In the case of Kubuntu I think they have some sort of permission in order to clarify any "Confusion in the Markspace" and they use different colours and themes to differentiate themselves from the main brand. I think that will need to be dealt with somehow immediately so that these communities have a 'secure' footing to stand on without having to worry about TM problems.
If a group wants to create Xedora which focuses on desktops that are not 3D based.. what will be needed to get it done? What kinds of trademark permissions are needed?
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
