On 12/21/2005 11:21 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ted Leung wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
low bar for access to the Apache brand name
And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the
Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying
to make
the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE
different.
And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules.
Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an
incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once
a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project.
that can be easily resolved.
you start up another domain say 'theincubator.org' or something 'proving
grounds' related and make sure it has no apache branding, and that no
project or PR firm can mention apache there.
Although I'm not sure we should take that step right now, I don't
think that's such a crazy suggestion. I do believe we should rethink
the branding of incubating project:
Today, we complain that corporations working on incubating projects
are taking advantage of the Apache brand. We wonder why the press and
public aren't aware of the distinction of incubating projects, and yet
we *require* these projects always preface their name with the same
master brand we use on fully endorse projects, "Apache".
We can't keep a low bar for incoming incubating projects and allow for
this confusion. We may indeed need a multibrand strategy when it
comes to incubating projects.
I think that this thread has much merit and should be pursued further.
Regards,
Alan
