On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:30:43PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > > The last ASF board meeting dissolved the ConCom PMC, and has split out > > responsibilities to other parts of the foundation. This impacts us > > specifically, in that approvals for the use of our Brand (including > > events) are primarily the responsibility of the PMC. > > > > That being said, we are now being asked to switch from concom approval > > to a trademarks@ lazy consensus. Guidance from the board was to change > > our trademark guidelines to require trademarks@ lazy concensus, and that > > the PMC was actually accountable for all of these approvals. > > This looks good to me, with one question: > > Who speaks for the PMC here? Should we have someone on point for this so > we ensure that people get a response in a timely fashion?
I'm not a fan of creating a SPOF for things like this. I'd suggest that PMC members on this list all share in the responsibility. We should all review and comment. Perhaps we specify a 72 hour lazy consensus *after* an ACK from a PMC member. > > We should also spell out: Put a [SPONSORSHIP] tag in the subject of the > email, starting a new thread for each event - so we explicitly see an > email for each event in its own thread. > Good idea. > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > [email protected] > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >
