On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 09:19 AM, Giles Sirett wrote: >> >> I don’t think the current “customer experience” of people who request use >> of our logo or word mark is very good. It certainly doesn’t encourage >> people to use our brand. Take Karens recent request: theres been a dozen >> or so emails on it, all with our own viewpoint. Karen’s been CC’d on most >> of those I think. Shes probably sat there, with 1001 deadlines getting >> frustrated with lots of views on the subject – all she really wants to do >> is get some tshirts printed in time for some event or another. >> And Karen does this a lot: I remember the guys at Ikoula > > Well, I agree with a lot of this - which is why I broke off my reply to > private@ only instead of replying-all. > > We should absolutely have a policy of ACK'ing the request, then > discussing, then getting back to the party with any concerns we might > have once we agree on what they are. (It's been suggested that we have > one person who handles TM issues, primarily, but many folks were > concerned about the single point of failure. The flip side is "when > everybody's responsible, nobody is" and a potential for bike shedding. > >> At the moment, the TM guide says this for non-software: >> >> • Without explicit written permission, goods bearing any of the >> CloudStack marks may not be sold. >> • Designs for non-software goods require both PMC approval and approval >> from [email protected]. >> >> I would love to see that changed to: >> If you wish to use the CloudStack mark on any non-software goods (maybe >> tee shirts for a conference or some marketing collateral) we’d love to >> see you do that. Please email [email protected] with artwork or a >> descrition and we’ll come back to you with approval within 5 days. You >> must not print until we have approval blah blah > > s/come back to you with approval/come back with a decision/ > > I like setting a time frame, but... what happens if we don't hit it? You > wait another 5 days, because we're not doing lazy consensus with marks. > But we should *try* to turn around anything like this within 72 hours. > (At least 3 business days, not sure I want to commit to decisions by > Monday if someone shoots an email on Friday morning...) > >> The PMC then can discuss internally if required (vote if required) and >> send a mail of to Shane and get back to requestor with a simple yes/no > > That is how it should go. I don't think it's a good idea to do the > discussion on marketing@ or spam the person making the request with the > full discussion. >
We also have the issue of it not being entirely in our control on many issues. Consider this example. Someone comes up with a design they want to make. The PMC isn't happy with that design, and asks for adjustments. Once the PMC is satisfied, we pass it along to TM@. TM@ may have questions or concerns, but now has to use whoever on the PMC brought the subject up as a middleman to get the questions answered. I'm not sure that's any less maddening.
