You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to marketing@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> on 2013/05/22 17:25:41 UTC
Event approval process changes
Hi all,
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.
I am proposing the following changes to our current guidelines [1]
(provided in diff format for easily understanding what I'm proposing to
change). Please provide any comments, but hearing none, I'll make the
changes to the guidelines early next week.
diff --git a/trademarkguidelines.wiki b/trademarkguidelines.wiki
index f3fcb8e..81f583a 100644
--- a/trademarkguidelines.wiki
+++ b/trademarkguidelines.wiki
@@ -35,16 +35,21 @@ h2. Sponsoring Events:
Sponsoring events can provide good visibility for the project, however it frequently requires funds that the project does not have access to. Many outside organizations wish to provide this type of visibility.
-In addition to gaining the approval of ConCom the following is required:
+The following is required:
-* Sponsorship discussed and approved on the cloudstack-marketing list. Approval is given by the PMC.
+* Sponsorship discussed and approved on the marketing@cloudstack.apache.org list. Approval is given by the PMC.
+* After approval from the PMC, the sponsorship approval will be forwarded to trademarks@apache.org by the PMC, followed by a 72 hour waiting period in case of objections from that ASF committee.
* Sponsorship must be provided with no additional affiliation - and only project provided marks used.
* At least one committer must be planning to represent the project.
+If desired by the funding organization, the sponsorship *may* be discussed on the private@cloudstack.apache.org list.
+
h2. CloudStack Specific Conferences:
-In addition to seeking permission from ConCom and other general ASF guidelines the additional guidelines for Apache CloudStack
-* Project approval from the PMC is needed.
+The following is required:
+
+* Discussed and approved on the marketing@cloudstack.apache.org list. Approval is given by the PMC.
+* After approval from the PMC, the event approval will be forwarded to trademarks@apache.org by the PMC, followed by a 72 hour waiting period in case of objections from that ASF committee.
* Membership on committees deciding content should be open to any Committer.
h2. Meetup groups, hackfests, barcamps, Birds of a Feather, and other small events.
-chip
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Trademark+Guidelines
Re: Event approval process changes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
I've applied these changes (with a few tweaks after our discussion
here), and moved the trademark guidelines to:
http://cloudstack.apache.org/trademark-guidelines.html
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:41AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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.
>
> I am proposing the following changes to our current guidelines [1]
> (provided in diff format for easily understanding what I'm proposing to
> change). Please provide any comments, but hearing none, I'll make the
> changes to the guidelines early next week.
>
>
> diff --git a/trademarkguidelines.wiki b/trademarkguidelines.wiki
> index f3fcb8e..81f583a 100644
> --- a/trademarkguidelines.wiki
> +++ b/trademarkguidelines.wiki
> @@ -35,16 +35,21 @@ h2. Sponsoring Events:
>
> Sponsoring events can provide good visibility for the project, however it frequently requires funds that the project does not have access to. Many outside organizations wish to provide this type of visibility.
>
> -In addition to gaining the approval of ConCom the following is required:
> +The following is required:
>
> -* Sponsorship discussed and approved on the cloudstack-marketing list. Approval is given by the PMC.
> +* Sponsorship discussed and approved on the marketing@cloudstack.apache.org list. Approval is given by the PMC.
> +* After approval from the PMC, the sponsorship approval will be forwarded to trademarks@apache.org by the PMC, followed by a 72 hour waiting period in case of objections from that ASF committee.
> * Sponsorship must be provided with no additional affiliation - and only project provided marks used.
> * At least one committer must be planning to represent the project.
>
> +If desired by the funding organization, the sponsorship *may* be discussed on the private@cloudstack.apache.org list.
> +
> h2. CloudStack Specific Conferences:
>
> -In addition to seeking permission from ConCom and other general ASF guidelines the additional guidelines for Apache CloudStack
> -* Project approval from the PMC is needed.
> +The following is required:
> +
> +* Discussed and approved on the marketing@cloudstack.apache.org list. Approval is given by the PMC.
> +* After approval from the PMC, the event approval will be forwarded to trademarks@apache.org by the PMC, followed by a 72 hour waiting period in case of objections from that ASF committee.
> * Membership on committees deciding content should be open to any Committer.
>
> h2. Meetup groups, hackfests, barcamps, Birds of a Feather, and other small events.
>
>
>
>
> -chip
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Trademark+Guidelines
>
Re: Event approval process changes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:41:21PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 02:36 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> > > 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 personally like the board's method of approving new PMC members - at
> > least one director ACKs and given silence you get approved, and I
> > think that works well here. Any PMC member can raise a flag if
> > concerned, but doesn't require a vote or any real process to speak of,
> > aside from time.
>
> OK. Let's see how that works, and make sure someone is ACK'ing...
Getting back to my SPOF point, all PMC members on this list should share
that responsibility. ;-)
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand the benefit of this. Who would it benefit? This
> > list isn't a high volume one to begin with, so not like we need to
> > create tons of rules for filtering email.
>
> Just because this list isn't high volume doesn't mean that the
> recipients aren't receiving a lot of email...
Honestly, I'd say we add it to the doc, but we don't ignore requests that forget it.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
Re: Event approval process changes
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 02:36 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> > 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 personally like the board's method of approving new PMC members - at
> least one director ACKs and given silence you get approved, and I
> think that works well here. Any PMC member can raise a flag if
> concerned, but doesn't require a vote or any real process to speak of,
> aside from time.
OK. Let's see how that works, and make sure someone is ACK'ing...
> > 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.
> >
>
> I don't understand the benefit of this. Who would it benefit? This
> list isn't a high volume one to begin with, so not like we need to
> create tons of rules for filtering email.
Just because this list isn't high volume doesn't mean that the
recipients aren't receiving a lot of email...
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
Re: Event approval process changes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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 personally like the board's method of approving new PMC members - at
least one director ACKs and given silence you get approved, and I
think that works well here. Any PMC member can raise a flag if
concerned, but doesn't require a vote or any real process to speak of,
aside from time.
> 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.
>
I don't understand the benefit of this. Who would it benefit? This
list isn't a high volume one to begin with, so not like we need to
create tons of rules for filtering email.
--David
Re: Event approval process changes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
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
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
Re: Event approval process changes
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
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?
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.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/