On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:47 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:19 PM Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I can't even begin to tell you how much of this I agree with. While I can > sympathize with the IPMC members who feel this way, at the end of the day > its on the incubator as a whole to explain the expectations. This is true > of both long standing members who have been here, to new members, to even > members who have left and come back. It needs to be communicated. I see > no mention of this on podling reports, no voices being raised. I have > reported on one report thus far that we need clarification from VP TM, but > no response was received, regarding some changes to PNS's. > Just to come to Geode's defense here - branding was discussed when the community put up their website a year ago and two IPMC members (me & Roman) thought the current site was sufficient to satisfy incubator branding[1] - so we (the IPMC) also need to understand the policy better and provide better guidance to podlings. Niall [1] http://markmail.org/message/ro7rzmrhcsrpkk2m > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Agreed 100%. We don't make sure mentors are aware of these issues. > Mentors therefor cannot provide it at a lower level to podlings. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > This is where I begin to disagree. We don't want podlings to just use > cookie cutter websites, at least I don't believe we do. I know I just want > to see podlings use our guidelines as a bare minimum set of requirements > for all of their branding. This includes websites, docs, and releases. > The point of the disclaimer is that there may be licensing issues within > the release contents and as a result may not be 100% Apache License > compliant. > > > > > > > > > > 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?" > > >
