Given what Joe said is exactly what I said I really object to this confrontational approach.
To your specific question, if someone is speaking *for* a project then they can only do so with the permission of the project (being a PMC member or committer does not automatically bestow that authority). if someone is speaking for their employer (or anyone other than the project) then they can use any title the PMC has awarded them as long as it conforms to the ASF trademark rules. That's just a repeat of what I said in my first mail. Sent from Windows Mail From: Roman Shaposhnik<mailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org> Sent: ?Sunday?, ?March? ?8?, ?2015 ?5?:?33? ?PM To: ComDev<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> Last reply on this thread for today ;-) On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015, at 05:09 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > As a title provided by a company, I would be against any title that > incorporates the name of an Apache project. Red Hat, for instance, can > employ (and grant the title) the "Fedora Project Leader" and Novell can > employ the "openSUSE Community Manager," but none of the companies are > entitled to give a title related to any Apache project. Now I think we're really getting somewhere: it seems to be that some confusion (definitely mine at least) stems from the fact of of who can actually grant that title. The example of I gave with Brett -- clearly the ASF community was the one bestowing that title. Now, quite contrary to the semantics game that Ross was playing with 'what is an official title anyway?' -- I'd say that at that point it becomes one of Brett's official titles. Which means that even if there's a *corporate* announcement of him doing an event he can be billed as: Bret, Developer at Apache Maven Can we agree on that? Thanks, Roman.
