<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 April 2014 16:06, Matthew Garrett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mjg59@srcf.ucam.org" target="_blank">mjg59@srcf.ucam.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">(Breaking this out from the ticket paste)<br>
<br>
One of the problems we face with deciding that Fedora is just our<br>
official products is that it makes it harder to figure out how spins fit<br>
in. One of the problems with defining Fedora more widely is that it<br>
makes it difficult to explain what Fedora actually is and guide users to<br>
appropriate downloads. Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way.<br>
<br>
.next is an opportunity for Fedora to develop a strong brand image over<br>
a small set of deliverables - Fedora-the-product, if you will. But<br>
Fedora-the-community is much larger than those deliverables. Most of the<br>
discussion we've had has been figuring out how to fit<br>
Fedora-the-community into Fedora-the-product, and I don't think there's<br>
any way to do that without compromising the associated benefits.<br>
<br>
How about if we decouple Fedora-the-product and Fedora-the-community?<br>
The obvious model here is Ubuntu, who over time have spawned several<br>
products driven by independent subcommunities. These products are<br>
independently managed but use common respoitories and are tied to the<br>
same overall release schedule, and each has its own strong branding -<br>
Kubuntu even has its own financial backing.<br>
<br>
Rather than saying that Fedora-the-product should represent all of our<br>
independent subcommunities, we could allow individual subcommunities to<br>
define their own product definitions, driven by their own branding. For<br>
example, KDE could define separate desktop (Plasma) and mobile (Plasma<br>
Active) products without having to worry about them conflicting with any<br>
other products.<br>
<br>
We'd still want some level of overall coordination - for instance,<br>
deciding what's release blocking would still be a wider discussion, but<br>
it might be possible for individual subcommunities to re-release based<br>
on -updates if they can obtain appropriate resources.<br>
<br>
The biggest problem I forsee in this situation is the perception that<br>
all other subcommunities are still to some extent second class citizens<br>
compared to the three Fedora products. The counterargument is that it<br>
gives them the opportunity to demonstrate that they're significantly<br>
better in a way that's currently impossible, and that may be enough to<br>
get people to change their minds as to future choices.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I want to start off with that I think this is an excellent idea and one that I would endorse and be excited about. But I can see your first problem being there</div>
<div><br></div><div>The second problem I see is with the standard thorn.. trademarks. In the case of Kubuntu I think they have some sort of permission in order to clarify any "Confusion in the Markspace" and they use different colours and themes to differentiate themselves from the main brand. I think that will need to be dealt with somehow immediately so that these communities have a 'secure' footing to stand on without having to worry about TM problems. </div>
<div><br></div><div>If a group wants to create Xedora which focuses on desktops that are not 3D based.. what will be needed to get it done? What kinds of trademark permissions are needed?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Stephen J Smoogen.<br><br></div>
</div></div>