I agree with Russell here. The goal is to clarify how to run a meetup that meets our requirements, rather than approving them individually. I like Max's addition to make anyone starting one aware of the brand guidelines.
I also like Danica's suggestions so that we state that we expect meetups to generally be neutral. On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:28 AM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > We definitely should not abdicate our responsibilities to the trade mark, > I just want to shift away from a pre-clearance model which we have done so > far. I know I > always try to help folks out if I see something which I think may be > inappropriate > > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 7:50 AM Rich Bowen <rbo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 2025/05/23 19:24:28 Russell Spitzer wrote: >> > Hey Y'all >> > >> > Basically I would like to get the PMC out of the meetup approval >> business >> ... >> > Please let me know what you think, >> >> (Board hat) >> >> A critical role of a PMC is being stewards of the project's brands/marks. >> So while it's not necessary that the PMC micromanage each individual >> meetup, it is important that they are *aware* of them, and are doing due >> dilligence to ensure that those brands are being used appropriately. >> >> I don't think that necessarily means that there is an approval vote for >> each one. That is, indeed, too much micromanagement. But I would encurage >> project members (whether PMC or not) who attend these events to be aware of >> the brand policy, and point out to meetup organizers when they're being >> violated (which I would expect to be very infrequent!). >> >> That is to say, +1 in general to your proposal here, with the >> understanding that the project as a whole owns the project's brands, and >> should be diligent about ensuring that they are not abused. >> >
