On 2022/12/08 20:30:02 Christian Grobmeier wrote: >... > Bu t I mentioned, I get your point. Would you be less concerned with a domain > like asf.social, since this is not an official domain? Assuming asf.social > would be only for ASF community, but also allow "offical" accounts like > press@asf.social?
By definition, asf.social is an official domain. ... If it is not, then it is a trademark violation. One might argue the violation (good luck), but isn't the GOAL to have an official domain to establish a trust level? Trademarks, but more specifically Branding: has stated that the ASF will not "grow" new domains, and that apache.org should be used. Simply to use "asf.social" would require a clear exception grant from Branding. Next: each hostname/service under apache.org must be owned by an Officer of the Foundation. It was unclear for many years for many years who owned www.apache.org and the annou...@apache.org mailing list. The Foundation decided that is our public face, our public messaging, and should (thus) be owned by the VP Marketing & Publicity. M&P also owns our Twitter account and YouTube channel. By similar reasoning, M&P would own how an official hostname used for Mastodon would be portrayed to the general public; especially if it would become official messaging channel(s) for the Foundation. Note: individual TLPs create their own accounts on third party services, such as Twitter and Facebook, without consultation with M&P. That is a bit different from constructing an official [Mastodon] namespace for the Foundation. Who owns *that* namespace? (IMO: M&P) Should such an official hostname be desired, an Officer Owner will be required. That is likely best discussed internally, but ENOCARE, really. Cheers, -g ps. not speaking for Infra; just explaining how ownership of host/service $foo works at the ASF --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
