Hi,
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 14:27 +0000, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I find this specific comment very odd, and wonder where communication
> has broken down.
>
> > I have reluctantly conceded to use "Apache BuildStream" in the
> > release
> > announcements in order to make this distinction, however, I want to
> > be
> > very clear that I am against rebranding of BuildStream, just
> > because we
> > are now under the Apache umbrella.
>
> When a project comes to Apache, it gets rebranded to Apache Foo.
> That's how we communicate to the world that it's an Apache project.
> This is a consistent, and mandatory, part of bringing a project to
> the Foundation. The Foundation exists, in part, to protect our
> brands. When BuildStream was established as a TLP, it became Apache
> BuildStream. That's not something that we should be debating, at this
> late stage.
Apparently Sander and yourself are in agreement about this, but indeed
it would have been good to be more clear about this when starting out
on this path.
As I understand it, I'm sure in some places policy will dictate that we
use the term "Apache BuildStream", but I'm sure that whatever is
written, human beings will still generally refer to the project as
"BuildStream", that is I'm sure the case for any project under the
Apache umbrella (except for perhaps httpd, which is simply called
"Apache" by most humans).
Consider this point conceded, however I am still asking for some leeway
in this - I don't want us to be taking every opportunity to shout the
fact that we are now an Apache project to our users.
As there is always a vocal minority of ideologues on either side of the
Free/Open Source Software debate - I think we should at the very least
be sensitive to the fact that at least some of our user base may not be
happy with the relicensing.
We were never "GNOME BuildStream", and being as vocal as possible about
being "Apache BuildStream" now is just insensitive and IMO at least a
bit rude - our community and users already know, and there is no need
to rub salt in old wounds.
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 15:37 +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
[...]
> I am going to be more insistent on this. The apache- prefix serves a
> real purpose here,
> even more so than for projects that have been at the ASF since
> inception: it clearly separates Apache BuildStream releases from
> BuildStream maintenance releases.
I think renaming the tarball in the main official distribution channel
here is just an opportunity to be exorbitantly vocal about BuildStream
having moved to Apache, and as far as I can tell by the language
expressed so far, it is entirely unnecessary, just "preferred".
In my view, the fact that the tarball appears on dist.apache.org should
be enough of a distinction here.
Sander, you might have the power to veto this - but I'm asking that you
just take a pause first, this is just the name of the tarball here.
Cheers,
-Tristan
