Some feedback comments inline. I didn't reply explicitly to every
message, but used the messages below to provide some context for my
Two more broad comments first.
1. To be clear, as the stewards of the budget and trademarks, the
Council implicitly has the authority to withdraw funding and the use
of Fedora trademarks. This proposal does not add or remove from that
implicit authority, it just makes it explicit. What it does add is
specific requirements for how any decisions made under that authority
2. I admit the "in the interests of the Fedora Project" part is
frustratingly vague. I wanted to make it clear that we wouldn't choose
to withdraw support on a whim, which is why that phrasing is in there
instead of just "The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's
support from events or other activities that involve fiscal
sponsorship or use of Fedora trademark." This should be a pretty high
bar to clear and happen rarely. On the other hand, trying to make it
less vague rapidly becomes a long document in itself. If there are
suggestions of 1-2 sentences that could be used instead of this
phrasing, I'd love to hear them.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 3:40 PM Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org> wrote:
I do think that fictional examples would make clearer the kind of issues
this is supposed to cover, since it might help people to dispell some
misunderstanding due to unspoken assumptions.
Example of what the policy is intended to cover:
The Mindshare Committee approves a booth at Totally Normal Open Source
Conference (TNOSC). Subsequent to Mindshare's approval, TNSOC
announces that the keynote speaker will be someone who has openly
advocated kicking puppies. The Fedora Council decides that puppy
kicking is so egregiously beyond the realm of acceptable behavior that
we cannot associate with this. (After all it, is very un-Friends-ly to
the good dogs.)
Result: The Fedora Council withdraws support from the event under the
Example of what the policy is not intended to cover:
The Mindshare Committee approves a booth at Some Other Tech Conference
(SOTC). SOTC is run by Computron Ltd. Computron Ltd. competes with IBM
in certain key markets and one day the CEOs fight over the arm rest on
the airplane. After that both IBM and Computron Ltd. devote their
entire marketing budget to calling each other names.
Result: The Fedora Council says "wow, this is ridiculous". Fedora's
participation in the event goes on as planned.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:33 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
What does withdrawing support mean, exactly? Request for a return of
funding, and removal of all Fedora trademarks from an upcoming event?
Or does this apply to future events only?
That's going to depend to some degree on the timing, the sponsorship
agreement (if any), etc. So for example, if it's six months out, we
may request a return of funding and removal of all trademarks. If the
sponsorship/exhibition agreement does not permit that, we may just
request the removal of trademarks (e.g. from the sponsor listings).
Obviously, if there are printed materials, it may be too late for
If this ambiguity is deliberate, how can event organizers achieve
planning certainty if they choose to accept Fedora support?
The same way they do now: with reputations and legal agreements.
Sponsors and exhibitors pull out of events for a variety of reasons.
This proposal is more about defining how the Council communicates the
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:27 AM Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
I would not limit this to "fiscal sponsorship" or "Fedora
There might also be non-fiscal sponsorship and the Council should still
have veto power. I am not sure but this might for example affect content
on pagure.io, if there would be something inappropriate but it would not
involve the Fedora trademark.
I see your point, but I don't think that's necessary. This example and
other cases like it are covered by the Code of Conduct and legal
policies on permissible content.
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream