incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Notes on branding
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2016 01:54:09 GMT
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:43 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
> Mike,
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:12 PM Mike Jumper <mike.jumper@guac-dev.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Gunnar Tapper <tapper.gunnar@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.jumper@guac-dev.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey <
>> marvin@rectangular.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Greg Chase <greg@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message