incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 01:52:45 GMT
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:09 PM John D. Ament <> wrote:

> Ok, now I'm a bit confused.  I'll try my best to state my points of
> clarification in line.
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM Christopher <> wrote:
> > I also wish to point out that the FluoProposal (
> > explicitly included an
> > intent/wish/request to continue using the Fluo logo (which includes the
> > name) on Fluo's historical sites. That proposal was accepted by the IPMC
> >
> I'm confused what this has to do with a logo.  I see now in your proposal
> that there's an explicit call out for the logo.  I'm not sure why.  Its a
> nice logo.  Assuming it was donated as a part of the overall donation, then
> there's no issue reusing it on other sites.
It was donated along with the rest of the code from the Fluo repository and
the Fluo I only offer this, to point out that it was identified up front
that the name (which is contained in the logo) was identified as something
which we'd like to continue to use at the original site, at least in a
limited sense.

> > (albeit without an explicit judgment on that issue). While the proposal
> did
> > not explicitly mention the domain name concerns, it did mention the
> > continued existence of "historical sites" after acceptance, sites whose
> > names could reasonably be expected to contain the Fluo name. I think this
> > is important in determining to what extent it should be considered fair
> and
> > reasonable to use the word "Fluo" on "".
> >
> The term "historical" is used in the proposal.  My interpretation of its
> use is that some sites may exist for historical purposes.  It seems that
> the intention however is to keep them going.  The list of sites are not
> mentioned, other than a GitHub site, which I'm not sure if that means
>,, or something else.  Its not obvious to
> me that this is which may be hosted as a github pages website.
The specific list of sites are not mentioned (outside of GitHub), but the
intention was to get blanket approval for all such historical sites. We
specifically called out the logo, because we anticipated trademark
considerations for that. We never anticipated that there'd be a trademark
concern over the name Fluo, because we didn't really think that alone would
be an issue, especially when separated from the word "Apache" (a mistake on
our part for not anticipating that). One of the reasons we didn't
anticipate that is because "Fluo" was incorporated as part of the overall
organization on GitHub and the corresponding website, as "fluo-io", and "" respectively. It was mentioned that only some of the Fluo code
would be transferred. Specifically, the repositories "fluo" and
"fluo-recipes", as indicated in the "Git repository" section with requested
ASF repos of "incubator-fluo.git" and "incubator-fluo-recipes.git".

So, it was always indicated that not all of the repositories at
(GitHub org fluo-io) were being granted. We did not expect that it would be
necessary to relocate these to another site/organization name to deconflict
the branding concerns.

> >
> > At no point in the proposal or vote discussions for Fluo was it mentioned
> > that we'd have to remove or transfer control of the domain, in
> > order to be compliant with ASF trademark policies upon acceptance into
> > Incubator, even though it was clear at the time that 1) the domain
> existed
> > and 2) hosted projects which would transfer to the ASF and projects which
> > would not.
> >
> The proposal is a bit missing in this area.  I see a documentation section,
> which mentions the website  Ignoring this discussion, my
> interpretation of this section is that it was being donated.  Yes,
> transference of domain names is expected.  Many projects coming in have
> done this (, are some examples).  If it was
> not intended to be transferred, its not clear to me why its mentioned in
> the proposal.

Agreed that the proposal was missing some info, in hindsight. The docs (at
least, the relevant ones) were expected to be transferred along with the
code. It was shortsighted on our part for not considering the what would
happen with the whole domain and the other repos/docs.

I believe our understanding of the Documentation section, according to was
the description "References to further reading material.", which seemed to
indicate that the section was for informational purposes, and not related
to what would be transferred.

> >
> > Taking this into account, and in conjunction with our intent to fix both
> > websites to reduce confusion, I hope that we can find a resolution which
> > does not require a name change, but can leave both and
> > coexisting.
> >
> >
> The co-existing part is where you need to talk more to TM and get their buy
> in.  Right now we have a highly inconsistent model at the ASF.

Okay, so it sounds like we need to open a thread on the TM mailing list to
resolve, before bringing the discussion back to the incubator list. I think
we'll still want to try to follow at least some of the below path also, to
help get approval on the TM list.

> I think our immediate, actionable plan should be to:
> >
> > 1. Remove redirect from to
> I'm not sure if you're doing this out of anger or what.  The current setup
> of redirect is fine.
Certainly not out of anger. The redirect simply shouldn't be there, since
that site served as documentation for Fluo, as well as the other projects
in the fluo-io GitHub organization, which are not part of Fluo itself, and
not part of ASF. I believe the redirect was performed in error to begin
with. Removing the redirect would be a correction, and would help
distinguish between what is Apache, and what is unaffiliated with Apache.

> >
> > 2. Place content on which:
> >   2.a) links to Apache Fluo
> >   2.b) states that Fluo is a trademark of Apache
> >   2.c) clarifies that is not affiliated or endorsed by the ASF
> >   2.d) is primarily focused on the community tools it hosts, and not
> Apache
> > Fluo
> 3. Ensure content on is updated to:
> >   3.a) remove pre-apache release or clearly document them.
> >   3.b) remove any implication that Fluo depends on any software at
> >   3.c) ensure no dependency on external documentation at
> All of the items under 3 are great graduation goals, and are not needed in
> the short term.
There was a -1 in this thread pending at least some of the website issues,
so I think we'll probably want them in the short-term as well. It would
also help with the pending TM list discussion we'll want to have.

> >
> > 4. Standardize on a different publicly available checkstyle and formatter
> > ruleset than the io.fluo:resources ones (maybe?)
> >
> Just to be clear.  my concern here is shared with the domain name.  If the
> domain name is cleared to be used, I don't have a strong concern on this.
Gotcha. We'll revisit that after the TM discussion about the domain
name, then, if necessary.

> >
> > If we're going to expend this effort, it would be nice to get some
> > assurances that this will be sufficient to resolve branding concerns, or
> if
> > there are additional steps short of changing the domain names, which we
> can
> > take to resolve these issues.
> >
> My recommendation is that be donated to the ASF and a new domain
> name chosen for the non-ASF community backed site.

We'll need to discuss this further, but I think our preferred option is
going to be (in order of preference):

1. Get approval from TM about continued use of the domain as an
unaffiliated community site.
2. Choose a new name for the podling project.
3. Your recommendation above.

Thanks for the good discussion. This has helped raise a lot of issues we
hadn't previously considered, and helped clarify what we need to do next.
I'm optimistic that the end result will be a clear path forward which
serves the community well.

Should I CC this list for the trademarks@ list discussion? Or just provide
a link?

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