Hi I'm speaking personally here - in that I haven't discussed this with Sanjiva and others - but I think it is too early to ask WSO2 to say what our branding approach will be, and I think its actually not helpful. I have read the background and I also have other background in Apache. The reason I think it is unhelpful is this: WSO2 has just donated this and we are primarily focussed right now on making this a success in Apache. We want this to work as an Apache project with all that entails, including getting wide community support, and getting other companies to use this commercially as well. The result is, that until this succeeds in Apache and until we see how this pans out we can't (and shouldn't!) commit to a particular plan. What we can, and have done is to commit to abide by Apache naming rules.
I also want to point out that there is a strong core of committers and Apache Members (and emeriti) involved in this who get Apache. There are also newbies who may make mistakes. Those mistakes are normal and are a sign that we are not running this as a corporate machine where every communication is managed, but as a genuine contribution to Apache where we CTR as a company and contributors are acting as individuals who need to earn and learn karma. Paul On 27 June 2013 21:49, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Noah I answered the same question by the same person (Joe) during the > > incubator discussion. > > > > You have my (personal) word we will run our proposed branding by the ASF > > branding team before we go out with it. To be honest, we have not even > > thought of how we'd do it ... we're a very different kind of company :-). > > We'll sort it out when we get there .. > > > > I wasn't trying to imply its a a fait accompli - just that I don't see > the > > point of a discussion being repeated when the same committers voted for > the > > current position 2 weeks ago. > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > Sanjiva, > > I think that your missing the context of Joe's position, so a bit of > history. > > CloudStack was an established brand from Cloud.com and later Citrix > that came to the ASF, much like Stratos. By all accounts from the > trademark folks, Citrix has done this relatively cleanly, and behaved > well. I suspect, particularly with the level of commitment we'ven seen > from WSO2, that this will also be the case and that there will be no > bad behavior. If that were the only concern, we wouldn't have a > conversation. > > Joe's particular pain points were not so much from what Citrix did, > but from the public linking the CloudStack brand to Citrix, and thus > linking actions and statements to Citrix, and continuing, despite lots > of reeducation efforts to link the two. In full disclosure - Joe and I > both are Citrix employees, and while we think our employer did a > decent job in behaving well from a trademark perspective, that isn't > the only piece of the puzzle. > > I'll give one example of such a problem: At a OSS event in India, > CloudStack had a booth manned by committers from the project. Separate > from that, Citrix sponsored the event and had a listing as a sponsor > (much like it does at the ASF). One of the organizers of that > conference who didn't catch the nuance of the problem, took it upon > himself to chang the logo on the website and combined the Citrix and > CloudStack logos so that 'Citrix CloudStack' was listed as one of the > Gold sponsors. This was noticed by folks external to the project and a > small but serious firestorm erupted, alleging that: > 1. Citrix was abusing the ASF, and the project and making it a vehicle > to advertise their product. > 2. Apache CloudStack wasn't an independent project, and that Citrix > was controlling it. > Of course to make it worse, no one in the project knew who in Citrix > sponsored the event, or where the munged logo came from, but > regardless, the damage was done, and even though it was rectified > within 12 hours, for some segment of the public, that became one of > their perceptions of the project. This isn't only such incident in > which people confused Citrix as the mouthpiece for CloudStack, but is > a decent example. > > So please don't take this as a 'we dont trust {you, WSO2}' - take this > as a 'we just came through a very similar process, and remember the > bruises'. And for the record, at the start of our project, I advocated > for keeping the CloudStack name, and if I had it to do over, I still > am 50/50 on whether to do so - there are advantages to keeping the > name and availing yourself of the branding investment made by WSO2. > There are also some potential downsides, and it's worth at least > having the community considering so they are making an informed > decision, not just the default. > > --David > -- Paul Fremantle CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair, VP, Apache Synapse UK: +44 207 096 0336 US: +1 646 595 7614 blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org twitter.com/pzfreo [email protected] wso2.com Lean Enterprise Middleware Disclaimer: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information and is intended exclusively for the addressee/s. If you are not the intended recipient/s, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received and in addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this communication. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
