Proposal for new trademark approval policy

[Jared K. Smith]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
> While I do think this proposal is a step into the right direction, I
> still have some questions and concerns.

No problem.  Thanks for taking the time to respond and share your insight.

> Only once or per-spin?

The proposal is to make this decision once.  It can obviously be
adjusted over time as necessary, but I don't think the Board needs to
make this determination on a per-spin basis.

>> 1) Each appointed SIG should create a checklist or SOP for Item approval

> What does "Item" mean in this context? Is it the spin or the trademark?

An "item" in this proposal is a spin or new image format that doesn't
fall into the definition of a spin (such as an EC2 image, for
example).

>> 2) When an appointed SIG gives its approval for a Item, it should do
>> so in a public and transparent manner. The SIG can decide the exact
>> manner of approval but who and where the approval is granted should be
>> specified in the SOP.
>
> Would the current spins process meet this description?

The current spins process meets this description.  The idea is to have
the other appointed SIGs (let's say Rel-Eng, Design, and QA for
argument's sake) also build standard operating procedures for how they
give approval to a spin or image format, and ensure that those
approvals happen in a transparent manner.

>> 3) Once approvals from appointed SIGS are done, the Item will be
>> submitted to the Board (via a ticket) for trademark approval.
>
> As far as I understood the current process, this is step one. Before we
> request trademark approval from the board, the spin was already ratified
> by the spins SIG, the design team already approved the artwork and so
> on.

That's how it was previously done, but this is one of the major
changes that we're proposing.  In the new system, you'd submit a Board
ticket that says "I got approval from the Spins SIG, the Design team,
Rel-eng, and QA.  I'm ready to get trademark approval."

> And isn't using the ticket system a bit overkill? Say we have 20 items
> to check by 10 different SIGs, this means we have 20 tickets, right?
> With the current privacy level of the board's trac, we cannot have a
> ticket where all SIGs comment on.

I anticipate one ticket per SIG.  If an individual SIG wants to break
particular items into a separate ticket for very specific reasons they
can, but I do not think we need one ticket per checklist.  One ticket
per SIG should be sufficient if most (if not all) cases.  And to be
honest, it doesn't even have to be a ticket.  If a SIG wants to come
up with some other way of tracking approvals, that's fine with me, as
long as it's done in a public, transparent way.  I just think tickets
are easy to keep track of and easy to follow.

>> 4) The Board can appoint a specific SIG to keep track of "trademarked"
>> Items and that SIG will set schedules and/or reasons for re-approval
>
> Spins are already approved per release only and need re-approval.

There was some confusion on that in our meeting, so I'm glad you've
clarified that.  In most cases, I would think that the re-approval
process would be very quick and easy.

> As I said this proposal is a step into the right direction, however I'm
> afraid it duplicates processes and governance that is already handled on
> a SIG level. I'm a big fan of the KISS principle.
>
> SIGs cannot approve the trademark usage, they can only approve what is
> in their scope and then give green light. Once there is positive
> feedback from all parties it is on the board to grant the trademark
> usage. This is what has worked fine in the past until it suddenly and or
> no apparent reason became very complicated on the board level.

Maybe you've misunderstood the proposal, but your description above
almost *exactly* fits with what we're proposing now.  The new proposal
is to have *less* involvement from the Board and *more* involvement
from the SIGs on their particular areas of expertise.

I'd be happy to help explain the new proposal if you have more
questions or concerns.

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader