incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: Notes on branding
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:47:44 GMT
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:19 PM Greg Chase <> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey <>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Greg Chase <> 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.

> >
> > 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

> >
> > 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?"

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message