On 10/19/07, Sara Dornsife <Sara.Dornsife at sun.com> wrote: > > John Plocher wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > > I'm not sure that this is what is happening. > Ian and Sara said or strongly implied that this discussion/decision was > being made by the Sun OpenSolaris marketing and Branding people who were > among the core contributers of the Advocacy (nee Marketing CG), and that > this was a presentation from that group. I'm taking them at their word. > > Internally at Sun, we'd like to give the community the opportunity to use > the trademark. Before opening up the discussion publicly though, I needed to > get buy-off that the offer was there. That took longer than I would have > hoped. > > > > I'm also aware that Sun does not have to do this. It owns the trademark. > > That Sara made a presentation about branding at OSDS07 is a step in the > right direction. Her proposal was a great beginning, but it isn't at all > ready for prime time - witness this discussion. > > Fair enough, although I should have opened discussion earlier, there wasn't > really any of this discussion at the Summit. In fact, no significant > objections beyond versioning were raised. The Summit was an opportunity to > expedite these types of conversations and from our perspective, we seemed to > reach consensus amongst those there. That the OGB members making the most > noise about this now, even though local, couldn't be bothered to attend the > Summit to participate in the conversation is another discussion. > > > > I'm hopeful that Sara, Ian and the other Sun Decision-Makers will follow > up on this and choose to use the Advocacy Community to hold their > discussions, evolve their proposals, and ask for a vote (even if they > don't technically need to). This is all part of /BUILDING/ a community > around ourselves. > > I will write up the proposal and post it to these lists. We can discuss from > there (both mine and John's). What would we be voting on exactly? What to > name Indiana? Use of the TM? Do we, as a CG, have the power or authority to > make such decisions? I think this is a broader OpenSolaris Community issue > that we need to resolve. > > > > I have deep reservations, don't get me wrong. The facts seem to be > that there has been NO prior advocacy CG discussions about this topic, > that the *first* external discussion of this was a set of slides at > OSDS07, that Ian is leading with his mouth without first building > consensus here, that there appear to be over 100 Core Contributers > in the Advocacy CG, most of which are User Group leaders and not > branding/marketing experts, that OGB members will do more destructive > complaining and less constructive leading.... > > There has been prior discussion. It was a while ago. My interpretation of > those discussions was that the name was controversial, and that one of the > controversies was that the TM was owned by Sun. While personally I think that > is not only a good thing, but a necessity, I agree that Sun should not use > its ownership of the TM as a way to mis-use it. Which is why I took the > discussion off-line and started the internal dialog. I'll agree that I should > have followed up earlier, and definitely before the Summit. >
Ummm. could you explain what you think is a good thing? (That there were controversies, or the trademark is owned by Sun). I ask because more and more I am starting to think those that have been advocating the need for an OpenSolaris Foundation that is a seperate entity from Sun may be on track. > I would also like to point out that it was my mouth leading and not Ian's. > Credit where credit is due. This one is mine to own. The summit slides may have been your's, but I don't think the press is quoting you in this article and many other articles. http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/014325.html > So, instead of bitching and moaning, I've joined the Advocacy community > and submitted a revised proposal. Wish me luck. Follow me there and > contribute. > > Thanks John. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I personally feel that no distro should have ***exclusive*** use of the modifier or name OpenSolaris. (But this again is Sun's decision to make, or Sun's decision to delegate this to the community). If **I** had to vote today for a community distro to be labeled "OpenSolaris", it would have to be Nexenta. Nexenta EXISTS, has gone through quite a bit of testing, is a binary distro, and I have had a chance to run it through it's paces. (This is assuming that we can't call SXCE OpenSolaris) Obviously there are others that would feel it inappropriate to give Nexenta the honor of sole bearer of the OpenSolaris name. To me Indiana still has to earn it's right to displace Nexenta as the leading repository based OpenSolaris distro. (If it's decided that for clarity's sake a single distro is appropriate.) I again say is premature, to anoint any distro "THE OpenSolaris Distro". As an alternative, I think it would be a great idea if Indiana becomes "**Sun.com's** OpenSolaris distro". (Emphasis on Sun). It will then, due to the close market association Sun has with OpenSolaris/Solaris effectively become to be known as OpenSolaris, without claiming to be "the distro", and without claiming exclusive use of the name OpenSolaris. ( Nexenta.org's OpenSolaris distro might also end up being called OpenSolaris.) Anyway, I think this is a good dicussion. -Brian P.S. - I suspect that as time progresses we will see multiple distros being developed at opensolaris.org. (Actually technically that is the case now, but they aren't competing distros.) P.S.S. - At the summit there was talk of SXCE going away, how do I explain this to the general public? > > > -John > > > > > ________________________________ > > > Subject: Re: [ogb-discuss] Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro > (was Re: [smf-discuss] Review for 6608098) > > From: Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> > > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:59:38 -0400 > > To: John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> > > To: John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> > > CC: Keith M Wesolowski <Keith.Wesolowski at Sun.COM>, Governing Board > <ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org> > > On 10/19/07, John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote: > > > > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > > > Think about what you're saying. A CG (by definition likely to be > comprised of like-minded people) can make decisions for everyone and, > as long as they voted properly, no one else can ever appeal that > > > decision. In what universe does this reading of the Constitution make > any sense at all? > > In the words that are written in the constitution that I > quoted. > This is what you get when you adopt a constitution that favors state's > rights over centralized government. Like it or not, we are a confederacy, > > > not a federation or a dictatorship. > > Definitions > Confederation: An association of sovereign states or > communities - > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation > > Federation: A form of government in which powers and functions > are divided between a central government and a number > of political subdivisions ... > usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/geography/glossary.htm > > What part of ... > > > > 6.1. Powers. The business and affairs of the OpenSolaris Community > shall be managed by or under the direction of the OpenSolaris Governing > Board (OGB), which may exercise all such powers granted by the Charter > > > for the operation and sustenance of the OpenSolaris Community efforts, > maintenance of the accepted procedures for making decisions within the > OpenSolaris Community, and enforcement of those procedures when deemed > > > necessary. > > ... says that the OGB has the power to override a CG decision? Is it > under Maintenance of Procedures? Enforcement? Arbitration? > > Furthermore, the Charter specifically excludes the OGB from any > right to decide things relating to Sun's OpenSolaris trademark: > > > > > > However, nothing in this charter shall be construed so as to confer > to the OGB: (a) any title or right under copyright, patent, trademark, > or other intellectual property law; ... > > I'm not disagreeing that it would be bad for Sun to do stuff > unilaterally > here, because it would be bad - very bad. > > But it would be worse for the OS.o community to self-destruct over an > internal power war between the OGB and a CG. Especially when the > > > constitution is written in such a state's rights manner. > > John, > > I'm not sure that this is what is happening. You have framed this as a > a CG decision a number of times in this thread. Where did you get that > idea? There isn't any "branding" discussion happening on > > > advocacy-discuss. > > Whether it is or it isn't the right place for it, it's just not > happening, contrary to what you are saying. > > As far as I can tell, a private Sun internal discussion is happening > > > about how best to approach the branding issue as regards to > OpenSolaris. > > The first time these thoughts were "publicly" presented to the > OpenSolaris community, was at the Summit, and only are we starting to > > > discuss the implications. > > Ian Murdock, who is "Sun's chief operating system platform strategist" > wants to see OpenSolaris the distro. (Ian has been telling the press > that this is going to happen. He did not consult the community, and > > > seek a consensus on this, before making this commitment. Thus I can > only assume that Sun's official position is that there will be a > distro called OpenSolaris, and that it will be developed under the > > Indiana project. (Although some of the development is NOW being done > > in the open, a number of project goals and design decisions were set > to meet Sun's undisclosed business goals). > > Because Ian said that Sun will make a disto called OpenSolaris, Sun > > now needs a distro called OpenSolaris. Sun doesn't need to do anything > > with the community, OGB, CG or otherwise. Involving the community at > this point, when it is clear that Sun has already made a decision to > > use their OpenSolaris trademark in a certain way, seems a bit of a > waste of time. > > > I am guessing when you are saying that it is a CG decision and not an > OGB or community decision, you mean it is a Sun > > legal/marketing/executive decision, not an OGB or community. > > Just so long as we all understand this, I think that can safely put > > this issue to rest. > > -Brian > > P.S. - I know the difference between ****Sun**** and an individual > > that works for Sun. As "Sun's chief operating system platform > strategist", I would say that Ian is qualified to act as an official > > Sun representative, and anything that he says, unless caveatted, is > > the "official" Sun policy/position. > > > > -John > > > > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > > > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > > > > ________________________________ _______________________________________________ > advocacy-discuss mailing list > advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org > > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss > > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
