[DISCUSS] Apache Fluo Branding

["John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>]

Christopher,

I wanted to start a separate thread regarding some of your branding
comments below, to make sure we're all on the same page.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:

> IPMC,
>
> Please consider the following candidates for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating
> and Fluo Build Resources 1.0.0-incubating. There are two artifacts, which
> we are releasing together. They do not contain Fluo itself, but are
> prerequisites for the Maven build of Fluo, which will be released via Maven
> upon successful passing of this vote. Releasing these to Maven will bring
> us a step closer to preparing release candidates for Fluo itself.
>
> Passing PPMC release vote thread:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7f9a1db3798ddc4123ba3c66c632cedde6272ba55f1132d556f24a67@%3Cdev.fluo.apache.org%3E
>
> Since the last attempted vote, we have taken significant steps to ensure
> that Apache retains exclusive use of the Fluo trademark. Historical
> releases still exist in Maven Central under the "io.fluo" groupId, but the
> original fluo.io site has been redirected to fluo.apache.org (until its
> domain registration expires, at which point our plan is to let it lapse),
>

This is all expected.  We don't replace those releases, just need to make
sure they're pre-apache releases and regarded as such.  Its really just a
call out to make sure its clear they're not vetted the way releases will be
vetted.

Regarding the domain name, an option there for you is to donate fluo.io to
the ASF as a part of joining the incubator.  You may want to follow up with
infra directly, but typically they do maintain domain names for projects,
as long as its all hosted on our infrastructure.


> and references to pre-Apache releases have been marked explicitly as such
> on the Fluo website. The organization containing related 3rd party software
> for Fluo was renamed in GitHub from fluo-io to astralway, so as not to
> misappropriate the Fluo trademark, and references to Fluo on those external
> projects have made it a point to explicitly refer to "Apache Fluo". The
> fluo.apache.org website will continue to be updated as we start making
> Apache releases, but we don't anticipate any future trademark concerns such
> as those noted in the previously canceled vote thread. Please let us know
> if we've overlooked something.
>
> Release artifacts are staged at:
>   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/fluo/
> and in a Nexus Staging repo:
>   https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1004
> for convenience.
>
> Signing key fingerprint is:
>   8CC4F8A2B29C2B040F2B835D6F0CDAE700B6899D
> KEYS in:
>   https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/fluo/KEYS
>
> Git Commits (branches) in
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-fluo.git:
>     02d4ea2332598a94285985ee8a1c8e92a42b4770 (build-resources-1.0.0-rc1)
>     95c48e3f14faf5cdca259d8ec60ec68b640fce1e (fluo-parent-1-rc3)
>
> If this vote passes, gpg-signed tags will be created using:
>     git tag -f -m 'Apache Fluo Build Resources 1.0.0-incubating' -s
> rel/build-resources-1.0.0-incubating
> 02d4ea2332598a94285985ee8a1c8e92a42b4770
>     git tag -f -m 'Apache Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating' -s
> rel/fluo-parent-1-incubating 95c48e3f14faf5cdca259d8ec60ec68b640fce1e
>
> Please vote one of:
> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> ... these artifacts as the 1-incubating release of Apache Fluo Parent POM
> and 1.0.0-incubating release of Apache Fluo Build Resources.
>
> This vote will end on Thu Aug 11 21:30:00 UTC 2016
> (Thu Aug 11 17:30:00 EDT 2016 / Thu Aug 11 14:30:00 PDT 2016)
>
> Thanks!
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Fluo Branding

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:

> Christopher,
>
> I wanted to start a separate thread regarding some of your branding
> comments below, to make sure we're all on the same page.
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > IPMC,
> >
> > Please consider the following candidates for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating
> > and Fluo Build Resources 1.0.0-incubating. There are two artifacts, which
> > we are releasing together. They do not contain Fluo itself, but are
> > prerequisites for the Maven build of Fluo, which will be released via
> Maven
> > upon successful passing of this vote. Releasing these to Maven will bring
> > us a step closer to preparing release candidates for Fluo itself.
> >
> > Passing PPMC release vote thread:
> >
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7f9a1db3798ddc4123ba3c66c632cedde6272ba55f1132d556f24a67@%3Cdev.fluo.apache.org%3E
> >
> > Since the last attempted vote, we have taken significant steps to ensure
> > that Apache retains exclusive use of the Fluo trademark. Historical
> > releases still exist in Maven Central under the "io.fluo" groupId, but
> the
> > original fluo.io site has been redirected to fluo.apache.org (until its
> > domain registration expires, at which point our plan is to let it lapse),
> >
>
> This is all expected.  We don't replace those releases, just need to make
> sure they're pre-apache releases and regarded as such.  Its really just a
> call out to make sure its clear they're not vetted the way releases will be
> vetted.
>
>
We're on the same page here. I mentioned it because it was raised as a
concern in the previous (canceled) vote thread, and I wanted to report back
on our progress. :)


> Regarding the domain name, an option there for you is to donate fluo.io to
> the ASF as a part of joining the incubator.  You may want to follow up with
> infra directly, but typically they do maintain domain names for projects,
> as long as its all hosted on our infrastructure.
>
>
We (the current owners of fluo.io) discussed this off list. We'd be willing
to donate it to ASF, but we don't feel we really need the domain, so
there's not really a motivation on our end to burden the ASF with the cost
of maintaining it. If the Foundation has an interest in managing the
domain, we'd gladly transfer it, but it's not something we think will
benefit the project. So, we thought it best to just let it lapse.