Agreed on avoiding the "dominated by WSO2" comments. It could discourage contributions.
In fact, to address Paul's points. You say that we should focus on just making Stratos a success at Apache, including getting community support and getting other companies involved. I agree completely. But I also think that sending a clear message about the provenance of the Apache Stratos software will be crucial to our success here. And yep, I don't think it would be reasonable to demand WSO2 to produce a comprehensive branding plan. I don't think anyone is asking about that. All I am saying is that *these things a worth thinking about*, as early on as possible. Trust me when I say that branding mistakes are *exceptionally* painful to correct further down the road. And to address Suresh's comments. I don't think anyone is attacking anyone, or expressing a lack of trust, or anything like that at all. Only me, Joe, and David, across multiple Apache projects, all have painful memories branding problems. And we're bringing it up as a point of conversation. That's all. As something for us to have a conversation about. On 28 June 2013 12:09, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: > I will weigh in both as a community member and also with my Mentor/IPMC > hat on. > > Lets not forget, David and Joe were not raising these concerns with a > trust (or lack of) factor, but with potential confusion both in present and > in future. I sympathize with them passively knowing the background and can > understand where they are coming from. I greatly appreciate their effort in > this discussion. However I will give WSO2 benefit of doubt given the way > they have played well so far on this project, and also most importantly > considering the history on how they orchestrated previous apache projects. > Sanjiva, Paul and WSO2 has been a open source developer factory and > certainly deserves credit for grooming a fleet of apache members who not > just contributed to the projects WSO2 is involved with, but ASF as a whole. > In this case, we can safely say the credit does not transfer, but since we > are only speculating on a potential problem, I am going to lean on this > provenance. > > I have other concern on too much emphasize on "the communicated is > dominated by WSO2" statements. I have seen this excessively being used in > the past week. I suggest to deemphasize this and be more welcoming. If > there is a need, I will write a detail phase wised community engagement, > but I think we are all good now and just get on with podling setup. > > David, with your INFRA karma, can you help with any pending setup tasks? > We need to get the GIT repo setup for code donation, svn repo and svnpubsub > for CMS bootstrapping, and JIRA. > > Cheers, > Suresh > > On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Paul Fremantle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > -- NS
