On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com> wrote: > > > The branding guidelines do not address feedback such as "logo in footer" > or > > "disclaimer is buried deep or below the fold". > > What would be best is if podlings just understood that intent, and as and > took > it upon themselves to ensure that their incubating status was communicated > effectively -- in websites, in release announcements, etc. > Except podlings are now being told they are "not being effective enough" according to an unspecified standard. > > It should be apparent to anyone who groks that intent that websites where > the > disclaimers and logos are buried subvert the branding guidelines. > You are dealing with new community members. It should not be assumed that something is grokable, especially when it seems there isn't a communicated consensus. > It seems that we will have to spell things out more aggressively. The new > language should make it plain that podlings are expected to uphold the > *spirit* of the guidelines, and not treat them as some bs technicality to > work > around. > Spirits can be hard to grasp. As I suggested before. If being prescriptive is too difficult, then force new podlings into a standardized web template that meets requirements, and spirt. This would actually really simplify the getting started process for new podlings. Then they can either do something new with their website once they become a TLP, or perhaps at some mid-level of maturity. > > If podlings don't like the disclaimers, they can hurry up and do the work > to > graduate. There are no objections to the disclaimer from Geode. The only issue is the lack of guidelines and being held to an ungrokable standard. We discussed the issue in our community and the response is "So what do we need to do?"
