Yet another website? (Re: [Ambassadors] belux ambassadors meeting log 15th April 2009)

[Frederic Hornain]

Dear *,

Well, I 100% agree on the fact that we should sign a kind of agreement with
RH in order to use the name/logo/domain/etc.. in relation with Fedora .

And well... +1 with Jeroen

But for my part I thing we have to do it together even if Fedora trademark
is owned by RH. I mean not only RH itself, F Ambassadors, etc... but every
Fedora communities inside the Fedora community.

Nonetheless behind these points is hidden a bigger problem.
ORGANIZATION
Rem :
*Ok, I perfectly understand the fact as Fedora is based on Volunteering so
it is not always easy to manage due to the
fact for instance peoples move from one project to another, people do not
have always time to do tasks and so on
In addition, I also perfectly understand it is not an easy task. ;) And so
really thanks to them who have taken this in charge.*

In order to explain my point of view let's go back to the subject of this
post.
The management of these agreements (domains, users, swags, logos, budjets
etc...).
For instance, if I am RH and I have to sign an agreement for such or such
subject with such and such people in a country you will have a bunch of
possibilities -see below -

NUMBER OF COUNTRY x NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS x NUMBER OF PEOPLES = BUNCH OF
POSSIBILITIES

And just a question do you have people to manage that bunch of possibilities
?

So Why did not do like this ?

RH sign every year democraticly an Generic Agreement with one persone or a
group(with every person in that group) in one Country.
then you have the following formula :

195 COUNTRIES - Well, I thing. Sorry for those I forgotten- x 1 AGREEMENT x
1 People or Group = 195 POSSIBILITIES

Much easier to maintain. :)

RH followed already that principle and had taken the good decision several
month ago to split his mono block Fedora in few entities. e.g. I mean  Max
for EMEA for example. But ASIA-PACIFIC, AMERICAS, EMEA are always too
generic.

So why did not do that ?


Sorry in advance if I wrote somting wrong but I can not know everything.
You know I am not the shadow man. :)

BR
Fred



On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com>wrote:

> On 04/16/2009 07:42 PM, Robert Scheck wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>
>>> Let's face it: ATM the changes have caused confusion and discomfort in
>>> the Fedora community.
>>>
>>
>> Well, that's more or less correct.
>>
>
> At this time being involved in several entities that have one or more
> fedora domain names registered, I can only say that you are not alone in
> your perceptions that this legal document is slightly twisting our arms as
> well as restricting us in translations of strings the binding contract wants
> to see mentioned, but...
>
> I can also assure you that concerns raised are handled with care and that
> the twisting of arms as we percieve it is anything *but* deliberate and
> completely unintentional.
>
> I would also like to mention that it is ultimately us that want these
> contracts to be signed, so that Red Hat Legal may finally act against
> *abuse* of the registered trademark, by sites such as the former
> fedorasolved.com which used to be a site with an anti-Fedora messages on
> it -if you know what I mean, but has now transferred in ownership to Fedora
> Unity.
>
> Last I'll say in this thread.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jeroen van Meeuwen
> -kanarip
>
>
> --
> Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list
> Fedora-ambassadors-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
>



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list
Fedora-ambassadors-list at redhat.com
Olpc mailing list
olpc-open at laptop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ambassadors/attachments/20090417/2d1583b7/attachment.html>