On Oct 9, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On 10/9/2005 10:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Oct 9, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I see Dain's point and I think that we do need to clarify if the
PRC's guidelines are suggestions or hard rules that they have
been empowered by the corporation to enforce. We need to
clarify this because it seems that the community really likes
the contentious logo; they are aware of other's opinions and
still they cling to their choice.
that's fine. Then we run it by the PRC and if they like it, it's
fine.
If these guidelines are suggestions then let's move on and
install our new, butt ugly, logo. ;) The community mandate is
clear. If these guidelines are hard rules that the PRC has been
empowered by the corporation to enforce, then more discussion
needs to be take place.
This is why I suggested we get the guidelines from the PRC,
winnow down the set, and let the community freely decide then.
We are at a fork in the road and we, the community, need to
clearly understand what the situation is.
Where is the question? Are we debating :
a) if the PRC has the right to make such guidelines?
b) if they are guidelines or rules?
c) if we are choosing to ignore the guidelines for the logo that
people are voting for?
d) if it's smart for us to ignore the spirit of the idea behind
the guidelines?
I think that we are behind the count here, so to speak, and would
be well served by being extra careful.
We are not debating. I and others would like to know the answers
to A and B.
A: What exactly constitutes proof here?
As a director last year, I voted for the resolution here :
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/
board_minutes_2004_06_23.txt
which, in part, says :
RESOLVED, that the Public Relations Committee be and hereby is
responsible for organization and oversight of efforts to handle
public relations on behalf of The Apache Software Foundation,
including trademark licensing and other issues regarding
management of the Apache brand and raising of funds
Now, we can argue about the finer points of if "management of the
apache brand" implies the whole suite, such as project branding, or
just the ASF brand in isolation, but I voted for it at the time with
the understanding that projects like Apache Geronimo are part of the
ASF, and therefore the PRC has an oversight role.
IMHO, it is not smart for us to ignore the spirit of the idea
behind the guidelines but, it is always best for the community to
make an informed decision.
Are you saying, "let's run the logo that the community picks by the
PRC and if they like it as well, then why dig up A and B which is a
contentious thing to do"? Sounds good to me. I would prefer to
have a non-procedural consensus then to add/analyze more process
and hierarchy.
I would too, but I did this to avoid us getting kicked around again
for making choice that the foundation, or parts of it, found not in
the ASFs better interest. Now we are aware of the (rules |
guidelines | heavy hand of the man), we're all professional adults
with a self-interest in finding a logo that is memorable, unique and
non-controversial, and I'm sure that we'll do the right thing. And
if we don't, we can't claim ignorance. And if someone doesn't like
it, it's a larger discussion with the PRC.
My two cents: I think that we should follow the PRC's guidelines as
if they were hard rules for two reasons. First, is that they seem
to me to be good and reasonable guidelines. Second, is that it is
their role to come up with corporate/community wide guidelines; I
think that we should respect that.
Great.
Thanks
geir
Regards,
Alan
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
