On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:43 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > Mike, > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:12 PM Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Gunnar Tapper <tapper.gun...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Let me offer up a concrete example since I struggle with the issue of >> > branding: http://trafodion.apache.org/documentation.html >> > >> > I chose the following approach based on input from out mentor Stack: >> > >> > - Added (incubator) to the menu bar >> > - Added the incubator logo on the top of the page >> > - Placed the disclaimer on the bottom of the page >> > >> > I did you placeholders in the documentation for things like mailing list, >> > project names, and cross-documentation links to make renaming a matter of >> > updating pom.xml files and rebuilding. >> > >> > However, I did NOT put incubator disclaimers or even an incubator status >> in >> > the documentation simply because it felt like over communication of >> > incubator status. As you'll see, the Apache license language is included >> in >> > PDF and web-book formats but not the incubator disclaimer. I don't know >> > whether I made the right choice. If I didn't, then I'd think that the >> > guidance should state that web pages and documentation should include >> BOTH >> > the ASL text and the incubator-disclaimer text. >> > >> > I hope this helps with the discussion. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Gunnar >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org> >> > 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". >> > > > >> > > > Incubation disclaimers are intended to be substantive. They are not >> > CYA >> > > > legal >> > > > boilerplate that can be are buried in fine print. The intent is to >> > > > communicate >> > > > (effectively!) to consumers that a project is incubating. That way, >> > > people >> > > > will know that certain caveats apply: >> > > > >> > > > Apache Foo is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache >> > Software >> > > > Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator. Incubation >> is >> > > > required of all newly accepted projects until a further review >> > > > indicates >> > > > that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making >> > process >> > > > have >> > > > stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF >> > projects. >> > > > While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the >> > > > completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the >> > > > project >> > > > has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. >> > > > >> > > > 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. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Can you cite, as an example, an incubating project's website where you >> > > would consider the incubating status effectively communicated, and the >> > > disclaimer not buried? >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Gunnar >> > *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.* >> > >> >> John and/or Roman, can you comment specifically on how the results of the >> branding audit [1] should be interpreted by the podlings concerned, and >> (please) provide some concrete examples of what podlings should and >> shouldn't do with respect to the audit? >> > > I would say that for now, podlings should take no action unless they are > contacted directly to fix something about their branding. I jumped the gun > a little on contacting a few podlings that seemed to be way out, but were > not actually against our current branding guidelines. According to the > list I put together, there are eight that are not in compliance at all with > the established policies. That policy being that you must include the > disclaimer, and it must be worded in a specific way. > > I asked a few podlings to add the incubator logo. This was mostly because > most links to the podling were not using the incubator domain. > > >> >> Where is the threshold between "Present, in footer, smaller font" and the >> much more colorful "Buried in footer"? Are not footers generally expected >> to be in a smaller font? >> > > Not saying that at all. The thing I'm trying to weigh is how easily can I > discern whether this project is fully vetted or not. > > If you take Wave for example, while its at the bottom of the page, their > entire page fits within the fold. If you take Guacamole as another > example, the placement makes it read as if it were website legal mumbo when > that's not the intent. The disclaimer isn't a disclaimer about the podling > website. > > >> >> Given that it sounds like the footer is generally-accepted sensible place >> for the disclaimer [2], and that the branding guidelines do not currently >> strictly require the Incubator logo [3], I'm not sure what the audit is >> trying to say at this point. >> >> > The audit is to document where we actually stand on the branding asks > across the podlings as defined today. There seems to be some broad > statements being made that everyone's out of compliance. I wanted to put > it in black and white (with blue headers now thanks to Sergio) where each > podling actually stands. > > Think of it as less of a software vendor audit and more like a comic book > collector audit. I wanted to write down what was in the collection. > > Understand that I did this all of my own free will. It was not conceived > as a private IPMC discussion.
I don't doubt for a second that this was well-intentioned, but from a mentor's perspective that may already be guiding a podling through what - to them - seems like overly-complex-not-well-documented-nor-understood "rules" having [even a well-intentioned] IPMC member nit-pick over undocumented pet-peeves isn't helpful. I'd prefer that we, IPMC, hash out stuff then given the mentors a chance to work through it since the relationship is there - otherwise, it can come across as IPMC sniping... --tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
