+1 As I've previously said, I think the current process for people seeking guidance/requesting use of TM's is clumsy at best.
From memory, I don’t think I've ever seen Shane (VP Brand) disagree with our PMC views on any case, so for me that removes any concerns whether we have got the required skills between us: we seem to reach the same conclusions as shane I'm also +1 on a shake up of the process and how we present that to the outside world. I don't think we're encouraging enough with people that want to use the marks Kind Regards Giles D: +44 20 3603 0541 | M: +44 796 111 2055 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Alex Huang [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 July 2014 18:06 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our trademark? ++1 My only question would be what type of skills is necessary to take on this work and do we have that skill set and time within the PMC. But almost anything is better than what we have now. Thanks for driving this Chip! --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 9:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DISCUSS] CloudStack PMC taking on direct management of our > trademark? > > ([email protected] and [email protected] have been > BCC'ed so they are aware I have started this discussion on marketing@) > > Hi all, > > An opportunity has been presented to us to allow the CloudStack PMC to > directly manage our trademark. I wanted to get a discussion going > about > (1) do we want to do this, and (2) if so what process would we follow for it. > What I need out of this thread is a gauge of consensus, and input into > our approach (if you agree with the idea of taking over direct management). > FWIW, I'm a strong +1 to taking on this responsibility as a project. > > As background for those that might not have it, today's trademark > guidelines (for the project [1] and the foundation [2]) explicitly > state a number of instances where the VP Brand Management for the > foundation must explicitly approve certain requests (including, for > example, non-software goods with a project logo). > > Discussion within the ASF board and trademarks committee has lead to a > conclusion that (at least) CloudStack's PMC could take on primary > responsibility for management of it's brand. The specifics of how this > will occur (board resolution or trademark policy changes) are still > under discussion. > > The current general opinion of those groups is that trademark > management by a PMC like CloudStack would be done in a way similar to > how our security team works. The [email protected] email > list is responsible for handling all inbound vulnerability reports, > and working to correct them with the appropriate committers. The > [email protected] list members are automatically included in our > list, so that they can provide oversight and step in to help / advise > when necessary. I expect something similar will occur for trademark > management questions. I also expect that we will see the > foundation-wide trademark policy [2] be patched to account for PMC's owning > "approvals" related to their specific marks. > > One of the reasons for this shift is the desire to scale the approval > process beyond a single individual. IMO, we need to be sure that our > approach to management of approvals is similarly able to scale within > the project itself > (i.e.: I'm against a single individual being the one to have to always > say > "approved".) > > If we agree in principle, I would expect that we would make changes to > our project's trademark policy [1] to clarify this decision making > authority and our process / approach for getting approvals. I also > expect that we would modify our project bylaws [3] to provide for a > clear mechanism for trademark approval. Last, we would perform a PMC > vote that signifies that we want to take on this responsibility to the board. > > So, comments? I'm looking for comments from anyone in the community > here, especially if you are someone that asks for approvals today. We > want to make it easy to get approval if the policy is being followed, > yet ensure that everyone is using our brand correctly. > > I'll wait a few days, and if nobody else proposes patches to the > relevant project documents, I'll propose them myself and see if they > match up with everyone's opinions. > > -chip > > [1] http://cloudstack.apache.org/trademark-guidelines.html > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ > [3] http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
