Hi tison, Thanks for flagging the trademark angle — the caution is well taken, and I agree a bare "fluss" org name wouldn't work.
That said, I don't think the qualified-name approach itself is the issue. flink-extended [1] is an existing, community-sanctioned precedent: it describes itself as "a neutral place to host the code of ecosystem projects that extend the capability of the Apache Flink," doing essentially what we're proposing. So a qualified name like "fluss-extended" seems already proven to be legitimate and within community norms — with PMC approval being the key piece. So my reading is that the main thing we need here is the PMC's buy-in, rather than rethinking the model itself. Of course, happy to hear if others see it differently. Thanks, Yang [1] https://github.com/flink-extended tison <[email protected]> 于2026年7月20日周一 16:37写道： > I remember that third-party contrib organizations shall not use the same > name of "fluss", which is a documented trademark policy in [1] > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/guide > > This is why SkyWalking's contrib org is called SkyAPM [2] and why the > ResillenceDB shuts down their previous orgs [3]. > > [2] https://github.com/SkyAPM > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gdx2rz2byfxtr0ftqy1tcmvl47gphcro > > So, for the situation we are here, I suggest: > > 1. We may directly create new repos for contrib code. This would handle the > IP clearance issue beforehand as well. > 2. Or, if there is a reason we must not hold the code within the ASF, use a > distinguished name for the org. > > Best, > tison. > > > Muhammet Orazov via dev <[email protected]> 于2026年7月20日周一 16:01写道： > > > Hello Yang, > > > > Thanks taking of this! > > > > All looks fine from my side, +1. > > > > We'd like to start with Fluss K8s operator on this organization, but > > definitely donate back to ASF on later stages. > > > > Best, > > Muhammet Orazov > > >
