wording change in trademark delegation policy

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:02 AM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Oh good.  I'm not the only one confused.  As I read it, the SIG is
just doing some of the vetting.

Now, maybe would could still s/SIG/SIG, WG, <whatever> but I don't
think it matters much given that the Council is still the final
approver.

josh