question about naming

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

question about naming

Martin Sebor
The Naming section of the Branding Guidelines states (among other
things) that

   ...podling MUST be referred to as Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention
   that the project is under Incubation. Suitable mentions include:

   * Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name" URL
   * Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation at the
     Apache Software Foundation.

See http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#Naming

Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
be sufficient on a third party web page that discusses the project:

     <a href="http://incubator.apache.org/podling-name">
         Apache Podling-Name
     </a>

Thanks
Martin

PS Based on prior discussions on this list I suspect that the answer
to my question is "no" (and that the both mentions should be included)
but it seems that the text above could reasonably be interpreted so as
to require *at least one* of the two but not necessarily both.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question about naming

Andrus Adamchik

On Jul 31, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:

> Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
> the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
> be sufficient on a third party web page that discusses the project:
>
>     <a href="http://incubator.apache.org/podling-name">
>         Apache Podling-Name
>     </a>

I think this policy refers to the *project* web site, documentation  
and other public presentation materials directly associated with the  
project. I don't think one can reasonably expect to control *third-
party* web sites unaffiliated with the project.

Andrus

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question about naming

sophitia que
In reply to this post by Martin Sebor
On 7/31/06, Martin Sebor <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
> the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
> be sufficient on a third party web page that discusses the project:
>
>     <a href="http://incubator.apache.org/podling-name">
>         Apache Podling-Name
>     </a>


Hello Martin:

From my perspective, the above is insufficient because it presumes that
people understand that http://incubator.apache.org/.... refers to a project
in incubation.  Perhaps this is a failure on our part, to do the sufficient
branding of what the Apache Incubator is, but I'd say that until such time
that the Apache Incubator has become better understood as an entity and
process through the industry, that explicit mention of a "project in
incubation/in the Apache Incubator" is necessary.

Susan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question about naming

Garrett Rooney
On 7/31/06, sophitia que <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/31/06, Martin Sebor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
> > the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
> > be sufficient on a third party web page that discusses the project:
> >
> >     <a href="http://incubator.apache.org/podling-name">
> >         Apache Podling-Name
> >     </a>
>
>
> Hello Martin:
>
> From my perspective, the above is insufficient because it presumes that
> people understand that http://incubator.apache.org/.... refers to a project
> in incubation.  Perhaps this is a failure on our part, to do the sufficient
> branding of what the Apache Incubator is, but I'd say that until such time
> that the Apache Incubator has become better understood as an entity and
> process through the industry, that explicit mention of a "project in
> incubation/in the Apache Incubator" is necessary.

If that's the case then someone should change the docs, since that's
totally not how I read it.  Judging from what's there now, just using
the link to incubator.a.o seems like it should be totally sufficient.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question about naming

robert burrell donkin-2
On 7/31/06, Garrett Rooney <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/31/06, sophitia que <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 7/31/06, Martin Sebor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
> > > the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
> > > be sufficient on a third party web page that discusses the project:
> > >
> > >     <a href="http://incubator.apache.org/podling-name">
> > >         Apache Podling-Name
> > >     </a>
> >
> >
> > Hello Martin:
> >
> > From my perspective, the above is insufficient because it presumes that
> > people understand that http://incubator.apache.org/.... refers to a project
> > in incubation.  Perhaps this is a failure on our part, to do the sufficient
> > branding of what the Apache Incubator is, but I'd say that until such time
> > that the Apache Incubator has become better understood as an entity and
> > process through the industry, that explicit mention of a "project in
> > incubation/in the Apache Incubator" is necessary.

+1

IMHO we need to start addressing this. the landing pages for the press
(and other media organisations) and analysts needs to contain
information about the incubator. the disclaimer in the releases is
good and there are a lot talks at conferences about the incubator so
i'm reasonably confident that we're doing ok with the grassroots. it's
the mainstream media and analysts that worry me.

> If that's the case then someone should change the docs,

there are plenty of improvements needed to the docs but there are only
a few people willing to step up and create patches at the moment.

> since that's totally not how I read it.

i read it as referring to self-promotion by those associated with the podling

> Judging from what's there now, just using
> the link to incubator.a.o seems like it should be totally sufficient.

perhaps we need to add a section aimed at downstream organizations
explaining our attitude to incubating podlings (which is summed up
pretty well in the release disclaimer) and asking them to help educate
their users. i'm agnostic about mandating a particular method for
doing so.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]