I saw no response to this. Can we move freemarker forward to not impede them? On Jan 7, 2016 07:44, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> So... I stumbled upon this as every time I send someone a link to > freemarker, we get bounced all over the place (I've been a long time > freemarker user). > > Where do things stand on this right now? We let groovy keep its old URL. > Is it a major problem that both URLs work? Is it a problem if only the old > URL works? (btw, from what I remember, podling.a.o used to not work so I'm > not sure what changed). > > FWIW, I saw tamaya listed on here. Tamaya has the incubator logo, so if > you feel its not prominent could you explain why its not prominent? > > John > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:27 PM Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Niall Pemberton >> > <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Attached a patch to: >> > >> > 1. change from poding.i.a.o to poding.a.o >> > >> > 2. Require the incubator logo and that it be prominent >> > >> > Thanks, Niall. >> > >> > For the time being, I'm -1 and going to play devil's advocate, but I'm >> > willing >> > to be persuaded. >> > >> > > https://paste.apache.org/nQTK >> > >> > OK, now the can of worms opens up... >> > >> > Compliance with the existing podling website branding requirements is >> > poor[1]. >> > >> >> From your review 13 compliant, 13 have 1 Issue, 10 have >1 issue. So I >> would disagree with the characterization of poor. You could say 72% one >> issue or less - maybe thats good!! >> >> >> > What good is adding another requirement for people to ignore[2]? >> > >> >> If we want podlings to have incubator branding, then IMO a logo would have >> far more effect than a URL. >> >> But I don't think non-compliance is a good argument against - should be >> judged on branding criteria >> >> >> >> > If the website is at `podling.apache.org`, then why not the mailing >> lists, >> > too? >> > >> > Some podlings find labeling releases "incubating" inconvenient for both >> > techncical and social reasons. Why not dispense with that requirement >> as >> > well? >> > >> > Some podlings find the requirement to brand themselves as "incubating" >> > inconvenient for marketing materials (including the podling website) >> > because >> > the public may interpret it as implying an immature codebase. >> Arguably, it >> > will help our podlings succeed if we simply stop differentiating them >> from >> > TLPs. So why do we distinguish podlings from TLPs at all? >> > >> >> Good points, I won't argue against them and the pTLP route imposes no such >> branding requirements. All I'm saying is that *if* we're going to impose >> *incubator* branding, then IMO the url is probably pretty ineffective and >> not a big change and my proposal to make the incubator logo more prominent >> would be better from a branding perspective. Having said that, I don't see >> much point in the *incubator* branding requirement, was just trying to >> work >> within the existing policy. >> >> >> >> > >> > Finally, to what extent does the Incubator have the responsibility to >> > involve >> > other entities at Apache (e.g. Marketing, Brand Management, Board) in >> > decisions to weaken podling branding requirements? >> > >> >> Yes, I think the brand VP should give an opinion. Presumably there was >> some >> involvement when the policy was put in place. >> >> >> > >> > My perspective on all these questions is that a balance has been struck >> > between inconvenience to the podling, the right of the the general >> public >> > to >> > know that a podling is incubating (and thus may put out releases that >> don't >> > adhere to all aspects of Apache policy, may not have a mature community, >> > etc.), and the reputatation of the Foundation. And therefore, reducing >> > inconvenience to the podling, while a worthy goal, is not sufficient >> > justification on its own to disrupt that balance. >> > >> > Better to seek out other ways to reduce podling inconvenience -- e.g. >> is it >> > possible to carve out some exception for Geode templates? >> > >> >> Good point. Lets see how this goes. >> >> Niall >> >> >> > >> > Marvin Humphrey >> > >> > [1] http://s.apache.org/3NU >> > [2] This is a tangential point, but I'm not enthused about replacing a >> > faceless technical mechanism with a policy that requires >> individuals to >> > serve as enforcers. I think that injects a negative dynamic into >> the >> > community. >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > >> >
