wording change in trademark delegation policy

[inode0]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 09:50 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 09:24:07AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>>>> We have a policy for possibly delegating trademark approval to various
>>>> SIGs. <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_approval_policy>. I'd
>>>> like to update "SIG" to read something like "SIG, Working Group, or
>>>> other Fedora committee or team". Any objections?
>>>
>>> I'd like there to be some sort of Fedora Legal veto in there. I don't
>>> anticipate ever having to use it, but I don't want anyone to think it
>>> doesn't exist.
>>
>> That seems basically reasonable. Wouldn't, however, that be a part of
>> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines>? It
>> actually does not seem to be; currently, that document says approval is
>> granted by the Council without any mention of a separate veto.
>
> I think it was implicit that the Council/Board would honor Fedora
> Legal's veto. The only reason I bring it up now is because we're
> delegating it out to SIGs who may not be aware of that situation.
>
> If you'd rather have me put it in the Trademark_guidelines, I have no
> issue with it being there, but I do want to make sure the SIGs are aware
> of it.

I'll a bit confused by the goal here. Point 3 in that proposed
approval policy says, "Once approvals from appointed SIGS are done,
the Item will be submitted to the Council (via a ticket) for trademark
approval." So is the SIG really doing the approval or just some
vetting of the request?

John