Re: Approval for project "BoF" get-togethers ?
> > > Does that make sense? > +1 absolutely; thanks
Re: Approval for project "BoF" get-togethers ?
rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote on 10/12/23 2:29 PM: On Thu, 2023-10-12 at 10:58 -0400, David Smiley wrote: Thanks Richard. I'll take your response as a Director as overriding whatever confusion I have with the published rules. I was hoping your perspective would somehow be evident in ASF published rules so that I wouldn't have needed to ask on ComDev. Alas. Just to be clear: Directors don't set trademark policy, the VP of Brand Management does. So any major concerns should absolutely go to the privately archived trademarks@ list: https://apache.org/foundation/marks/contact#pmc In terms of proper usage and high-level processes around trademarks, the purpose of our brand policies are to ensure the ASF and our projects accrue the goodwill behind our marks. Since we primarily produce software, the key question is: will new attendees to some event (like you mention) believe the underlying software comes from the ASF or not? In terms of BOFs at our own events, the association to ASF projects should be clear, and should only need the organizational approval of the event organizers. In particular, attendees at the BOF are already going to be well aware of ASF branding elsewhere. Even in terms of BOFs at non-ASF affiliated events, I would not normally expect organizers to need PMC approval up front. In particular, BOFs are often arranged at a conference during the hallway track. Similarly, attendees at a technical event like Berlin Buzzwords are unlikely to be confused about brands, unless whoever's holding the BOF is otherwise improperly using our trademarks. I think that, as with many ASF policies, policies are created to address bad situations, rather than pre-emptively. This has never come up that I'm aware of, and thus our policy never thought to address it. So, yeah, we could stand to update that policy to reflect this feedback. But FWIW, that's *my* policy, as VP Conferences, so whatever confusion you have with it is *also* on me. It sounds like simple clarifications would help: - Add a brief note about BOFs or other small scheduled parts of a larger branded event to the marks/events policy, and point to the comdev page. - Update the ComDev small-events page to more clearly separate kinds of events, and better point to major points of the trademark policy. - Update the ComDev small-events page to better reflect that the PMC may be able to help on a volunteer basis. - Ensure events.apache.org, which should be the conceptual homepage for many of these questions, to clarify and better point to the other pages. Does that make sense? -- - Shane ComDev PMC The Apache Software Foundation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Approval for project "BoF" get-togethers ?
On Thu, 2023-10-12 at 10:58 -0400, David Smiley wrote: > Thanks Richard. I'll take your response as a Director as overriding > whatever confusion I have with the published rules. I was hoping > your > perspective would somehow be evident in ASF published rules so that I > wouldn't have needed to ask on ComDev. Alas. I think that, as with many ASF policies, policies are created to address bad situations, rather than pre-emptively. This has never come up that I'm aware of, and thus our policy never thought to address it. So, yeah, we could stand to update that policy to reflect this feedback. But FWIW, that's *my* policy, as VP Conferences, so whatever confusion you have with it is *also* on me. --Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Approval for project "BoF" get-togethers ?
Thanks Richard. I'll take your response as a Director as overriding whatever confusion I have with the published rules. I was hoping your perspective would somehow be evident in ASF published rules so that I wouldn't have needed to ask on ComDev. Alas. ~ David On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 9:40 AM wrote: > On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 02:07 -0400, David Smiley wrote: > > Hello ComDev, > > > > I'm the Apache Solr PMC chair and I have some brading/trademark > > questions > > pertaining to policies around event organization and ASF rules of > > such. > > > > I've read: > > [1] Policy for Event names using Apache marks: > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events.html#events > > [2] Approval of small Apache-related events: > > https://community.apache.org/events/small-events.html > > > > Question: > > * At ASF Community-over-Code, if someone organizes a Birds of a > > Feather for > > Solr and it gets onto the event schedule, should it be necessary to > > get the > > Solr PMC's approval beforehand? Would it matter if the person who > > arranged > > it is a PMC member themselves or not? Please ultimately explain the > > answer > > with a rationale against the current policy. It's unclear if the BoF > > *itself* is a "small Apache-related event" or if the fact that it's > > at an > > ASF ticketed conference overrides because then the policy wouldn't > > apply at > > all (nothing is "3rd party"). > > No, I see no need for that degree of process or overhead. Meetups, > BoFs, local gatherings, are no different than chatting over dinner with > friends, and I would *not* want to require PMC oversight there. > > The policy is for when the brand is being used to promote something > publicly and there's a chance of confusion that you are somehow > speaking on behalf of the project. A meetup does not have this kind of > potential for confusion. > > > > > * If such a BoF were to be organized at a non-Apache conference (e.g. > > Berlin Buzzwords), presumably Solr PMC permission is needed as > > specified by > > [2]. > > Even there, I'd say no. Having a "let's get together to talk about > Solr" gathering at All Things Open, or Open Source Summit, does NOT > require the PMC's approval, or even acknowledgement. > > Now, if you're a group of project members making *decisions*, then that > must go back to the mailing list to involve the whole community. But > you already knew that. > > > > > An unclear aspect of the policy is what the "event" is -- is it the > > entire > > conference or could it be the proposed BoF talk as well, even though > > it's > > composed as part of another event? If we're only looking at the > > BoF/talk > > itself, then would it be "3rd party" if the primary speaker is a PMC > > member? The text at > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources > > (search for "third party") seems to contrast PMC members & committers > > in a > > way to imply they are *not* third party. > > > Interesting question. > > I would never consider a BoF "an event" for the purposes of this > policy. Nor would I consider something arranged on meetups.com or > whatever to be "an event". An event implies marketing, tickets, and so > on. > > Yes, it's a fuzzy line, but I am not in favor of creating process that > discourages user meetups. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
Re: Approval for project "BoF" get-togethers ?
On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 12:29 -0700, Anshum Gupta wrote: > I agree with Rich here. Organizing meetups, BoFs, etc. are essential > for a > healthy community. > > I would like to clarify though, that the meetups should not claim as > being > organized "by the PMC" without a prior notification to the PMC > (private > list?). +1 Indeed, if you're doing these things, you *should* be notifying the dev list, every single time. I assume you're already doing that. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Approval for project "BoF" get-togethers ?
I agree with Rich here. Organizing meetups, BoFs, etc. are essential for a healthy community. I would like to clarify though, that the meetups should not claim as being organized "by the PMC" without a prior notification to the PMC (private list?). On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 6:40 AM wrote: > On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 02:07 -0400, David Smiley wrote: > > Hello ComDev, > > > > I'm the Apache Solr PMC chair and I have some brading/trademark > > questions > > pertaining to policies around event organization and ASF rules of > > such. > > > > I've read: > > [1] Policy for Event names using Apache marks: > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events.html#events > > [2] Approval of small Apache-related events: > > https://community.apache.org/events/small-events.html > > > > Question: > > * At ASF Community-over-Code, if someone organizes a Birds of a > > Feather for > > Solr and it gets onto the event schedule, should it be necessary to > > get the > > Solr PMC's approval beforehand? Would it matter if the person who > > arranged > > it is a PMC member themselves or not? Please ultimately explain the > > answer > > with a rationale against the current policy. It's unclear if the BoF > > *itself* is a "small Apache-related event" or if the fact that it's > > at an > > ASF ticketed conference overrides because then the policy wouldn't > > apply at > > all (nothing is "3rd party"). > > No, I see no need for that degree of process or overhead. Meetups, > BoFs, local gatherings, are no different than chatting over dinner with > friends, and I would *not* want to require PMC oversight there. > > The policy is for when the brand is being used to promote something > publicly and there's a chance of confusion that you are somehow > speaking on behalf of the project. A meetup does not have this kind of > potential for confusion. > > > > > * If such a BoF were to be organized at a non-Apache conference (e.g. > > Berlin Buzzwords), presumably Solr PMC permission is needed as > > specified by > > [2]. > > Even there, I'd say no. Having a "let's get together to talk about > Solr" gathering at All Things Open, or Open Source Summit, does NOT > require the PMC's approval, or even acknowledgement. > > Now, if you're a group of project members making *decisions*, then that > must go back to the mailing list to involve the whole community. But > you already knew that. > > > > > An unclear aspect of the policy is what the "event" is -- is it the > > entire > > conference or could it be the proposed BoF talk as well, even though > > it's > > composed as part of another event? If we're only looking at the > > BoF/talk > > itself, then would it be "3rd party" if the primary speaker is a PMC > > member? The text at > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources > > (search for "third party") seems to contrast PMC members & committers > > in a > > way to imply they are *not* third party. > > > Interesting question. > > I would never consider a BoF "an event" for the purposes of this > policy. Nor would I consider something arranged on meetups.com or > whatever to be "an event". An event implies marketing, tickets, and so > on. > > Yes, it's a fuzzy line, but I am not in favor of creating process that > discourages user meetups. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > -- Anshum Gupta
Re: Approval for project "BoF" get-togethers ?
On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 02:07 -0400, David Smiley wrote: > Hello ComDev, > > I'm the Apache Solr PMC chair and I have some brading/trademark > questions > pertaining to policies around event organization and ASF rules of > such. > > I've read: > [1] Policy for Event names using Apache marks: > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events.html#events > [2] Approval of small Apache-related events: > https://community.apache.org/events/small-events.html > > Question: > * At ASF Community-over-Code, if someone organizes a Birds of a > Feather for > Solr and it gets onto the event schedule, should it be necessary to > get the > Solr PMC's approval beforehand? Would it matter if the person who > arranged > it is a PMC member themselves or not? Please ultimately explain the > answer > with a rationale against the current policy. It's unclear if the BoF > *itself* is a "small Apache-related event" or if the fact that it's > at an > ASF ticketed conference overrides because then the policy wouldn't > apply at > all (nothing is "3rd party"). No, I see no need for that degree of process or overhead. Meetups, BoFs, local gatherings, are no different than chatting over dinner with friends, and I would *not* want to require PMC oversight there. The policy is for when the brand is being used to promote something publicly and there's a chance of confusion that you are somehow speaking on behalf of the project. A meetup does not have this kind of potential for confusion. > > * If such a BoF were to be organized at a non-Apache conference (e.g. > Berlin Buzzwords), presumably Solr PMC permission is needed as > specified by > [2]. Even there, I'd say no. Having a "let's get together to talk about Solr" gathering at All Things Open, or Open Source Summit, does NOT require the PMC's approval, or even acknowledgement. Now, if you're a group of project members making *decisions*, then that must go back to the mailing list to involve the whole community. But you already knew that. > > An unclear aspect of the policy is what the "event" is -- is it the > entire > conference or could it be the proposed BoF talk as well, even though > it's > composed as part of another event? If we're only looking at the > BoF/talk > itself, then would it be "3rd party" if the primary speaker is a PMC > member? The text at > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources > (search for "third party") seems to contrast PMC members & committers > in a > way to imply they are *not* third party. Interesting question. I would never consider a BoF "an event" for the purposes of this policy. Nor would I consider something arranged on meetups.com or whatever to be "an event". An event implies marketing, tickets, and so on. Yes, it's a fuzzy line, but I am not in favor of creating process that discourages user meetups. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
