You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for my very brusque tone in my earlier email. I don't want, in any way, to make you feel unwelcome here. Please forgive me.
To be completely rules-bound, the general rule is that in formal communication (blog posts, press releases, and so on) it's "Apache Foo" on the first mention, and just "Foo" thereafter. But you are completely correct, actual humans will always, only, ever, call it BuildStream and that's totally fine. On 2022/11/09 06:24:55 Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > 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 > > >
