On Dec 20, 2007 1:06 PM, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: > > On Dec 20, 2007 12:10 PM, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > > If there's non-community-originated material, then I'd question > > > whether it belongs on opensolaris.org at all. > > > > Obviously, there must be some sanity in this. > > > > Sun provided almost all of the material that our website has on it. > > > > Even if you say that they contributed that through their employees > > acting as community members, there is some of that content that is > > arguably Sun's alone (such as trademarks, logos, marketing material, > > Solaris Express related items, binary blobs for OpenSolaris, etc.). > > > > Throwing out everything that is "non-community-originated" would leave > > us with not a whole lot. > > That's not at all what I suggested. Instead, if you look back at the > message I was responding to, Simon Phipps was supposing that we would > have opensolaris.org editorial changes that come from no community > group at all:
I didn't think so, but that's why I was prodding for answers :) > > > > the website CG's CCs have content roles that the OGB expects all CG > > > > content to be in perfect for-publication condition from its > > > > originators. Further, it seems to be anticipated that all non-text > > > > elements and non-CG-originated materials will be supplied by > > > > polymaths in other CGs. > > I think it should be up to the community at large to determine what to > do with materials that are proposed for use on the common areas of the > web site, and given the committee that we'd previously approved, > that'd be in their area to review. Perhaps that should apply to CG > input as well as to random input from non-members. It seems a > surprising question to have to ask, but I'm more than willing to defer > to the committee. I think earlier arguments about the community at large not being the appropriate parties to control content that came from others is somewhat valid. If the intent is strictly to approve or disapprove content that is provided by projects, that's fine. However, I don't think we want to get into a situation where the community at large revises materials provided by others since they may not be qualified to do so (from a technical or other perspective). > Until it's been proven otherwise, I'm going to assume that the people > chosen for the committee are reasonable people who can make some > reasonable choices. > > I'm not going to assume that they're evil or that they're somehow out > to damage Sun. I suspect that others think this, but I'm just baffled > why that'd be a concern. I have no feeling one way or another. However, that's mainly because I think things will just happen as they're meant to. I've trusted the folks running the website for a long time now. I have no reason to stop trusting them. > > Part of the problem I see in this review board is that Sun has the > > full right to control marketing materials related to their trademark > > that are outside the scope of fair use. > > That's correct. > > > This means, for example, that if they decide that there should be a > > new OpenSolaris logo for the OpenSolaris trademark, they have the full > > right to do that. > > That's likely an issue that the committee will need to resolve, yes. There are a myriad of cases here that I won't go into, but suffice to say, this does need to be accounted for ahead of time. We should be proactively discussing how we expect to cooperate with Sun's branding and marketing operations since they directly impact the perception of the community. > I see no reason at all to try to resolve it here, now, and on their > behalf. I'd _assume_ that they're capable of making reasonable and > legal decisions, and if they're not, we'll pull the plug on them and > pick something else. I think some of that needs to be defined ahead of time. For example, Sun knew it was legal to name a "Project of their choice" as OpenSolaris, and also though it reasonable. Apparently, many members of the community did not. Defining expectations ahead of time for marketing related operations could help prevent problems from happening later on. > The proposal for a committee was reasonably formulated, and a majority > of the board agreed to put it in place. I don't think the idea was at > all haphazard (again, I think some of the people commenting here > believe that to be true) or ill-considered. I certainly haven't claimed that, nor do I have an issue with having one. It might not be the best representative group, but I will trust our elected officials in this area. > > If Sun does make a new logo, who gets the say over whether it goes to > > our website, etc.? > > > > The current materials are certainly strictly controlled by Sun. > > That's where I think the error occurs. > > Sun currently doesn't control the project pages or the community group > pages that live on opensolaris.org, so asserting that content control > for all of opensolaris.org is in Sun's hands is strictly untrue. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was trying to imply through context that what I was saying was strictly related to marketing and trademark materials, sun-provided blobs, etc. > The control is less than that, but how much less? I believe the > answer needs to be that Sun controls Sun's assets, but that the > community controls its own spaces delegated by Sun. Depending on who you ask, Sun may or may not have the right to delegate areas of control. > If the community can't control its own spaces, including the editorial > content of the common areas of the web site, then all bets are off. > The previous arguments for having a community group or a project team > in charge of the web site are just as invalid as will be this OGB > committee. That's not a contingency that *either* side of this debate > has been allowing for, so if that happens, we'll need to adjust plans > accordingly. I don't think Sun's intent is to wrest complete control or even most control from the community. I believe that, so far, they have acted in the community's best interests or in ways that are necessary as a public company. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
