Just read through the PMCS link, and I'd more or less concur with Jeff's comment. Quick scan of the main home page and a couple of possible additions come to mind, depending on the scope of this piece of work:
- the header statement "The goal of" refers to the Geronimo project, rather than the Apache Geronimo project - theres a requirement for a "prominent" link to the ASF home page...which the link in the Overview panel may/may not comply with Agree on Trademarks/Powered by/Other guidelines. Guessing there'd be a need to check out the subproject sites as well (noted that the GBuild link in the nav panel looks to be broken). Happy to help out on this one. Cheers Dave On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:25 AM, chi runhua <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just go through the requirements in > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs quickly and here are some > differences I've noticed. Not sure I was looking into the right direction. > > > Project Website complied > Project Naming and Description complied > Website navigation links complied > Trademark attributions we don't have one on the Geronimo homepage, > might need to update the main page? > TM on logos and graphics we don't have the "TM" symbol in the graphic, > might need to update the Graphic? > Powered By ... Logos didn't find anything on Geronimo website > similar to http://www.apache.org/images/apache_pb.gif, so we might just pass > this one? > Other trademark guideline GShell is written with Groovy, might need to > use GShell for Groovy instead of GShell? > > > just let me know if anything else I can help with. > > > Jeff C > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> All, >> We need to insure that the Geronimo website conforms to the current brand >> and trademark requirements as described in >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs >> >> In particular, conforming to the naming and trademark attribution >> requirements will require updates. But, we'll need to review all of the >> requirements to insure that we're conforming. We'll need to include status >> in our next board report and have been asked to conform to these >> requirements by March 2011. >> >> Anybody interested in helping out with this? We should start with a review >> of the changes that are required (discuss on this list). >> >> --kevan -- Cheers, Dave
