On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:43 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: >> Mike, >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:12 PM Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Gunnar Tapper <tapper.gun...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Let me offer up a concrete example since I struggle with the issue of >>> > branding: http://trafodion.apache.org/documentation.html >>> > >>> > I chose the following approach based on input from out mentor Stack: >>> > >>> > - Added (incubator) to the menu bar >>> > - Added the incubator logo on the top of the page >>> > - Placed the disclaimer on the bottom of the page >>> > >>> > I did you placeholders in the documentation for things like mailing list, >>> > project names, and cross-documentation links to make renaming a matter of >>> > updating pom.xml files and rebuilding. >>> > >>> > However, I did NOT put incubator disclaimers or even an incubator status >>> in >>> > the documentation simply because it felt like over communication of >>> > incubator status. As you'll see, the Apache license language is included >>> in >>> > PDF and web-book formats but not the incubator disclaimer. I don't know >>> > whether I made the right choice. If I didn't, then I'd think that the >>> > guidance should state that web pages and documentation should include >>> BOTH >>> > the ASL text and the incubator-disclaimer text. >>> > >>> > I hope this helps with the discussion. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > Gunnar >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey < >>> mar...@rectangular.com >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > The branding guidelines do not address feedback such as "logo in >>> > > footer" >>> > > > or >>> > > > > "disclaimer is buried deep or below the fold". >>> > > > >>> > > > Incubation disclaimers are intended to be substantive. They are not >>> > CYA >>> > > > legal >>> > > > boilerplate that can be are buried in fine print. The intent is to >>> > > > communicate >>> > > > (effectively!) to consumers that a project is incubating. That way, >>> > > people >>> > > > will know that certain caveats apply: >>> > > > >>> > > > Apache Foo is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache >>> > Software >>> > > > Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator. Incubation >>> is >>> > > > required of all newly accepted projects until a further review >>> > > > indicates >>> > > > that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making >>> > process >>> > > > have >>> > > > stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF >>> > projects. >>> > > > While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the >>> > > > completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the >>> > > > project >>> > > > has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. >>> > > > >>> > > > What would be best is if podlings just understood that intent, and as >>> > and >>> > > > took >>> > > > it upon themselves to ensure that their incubating status was >>> > > communicated >>> > > > effectively -- in websites, in release announcements, etc. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > Can you cite, as an example, an incubating project's website where you >>> > > would consider the incubating status effectively communicated, and the >>> > > disclaimer not buried? >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > Gunnar >>> > *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.* >>> > >>> >>> John and/or Roman, can you comment specifically on how the results of the >>> branding audit [1] should be interpreted by the podlings concerned, and >>> (please) provide some concrete examples of what podlings should and >>> shouldn't do with respect to the audit? >>> >> >> I would say that for now, podlings should take no action unless they are >> contacted directly to fix something about their branding. I jumped the gun >> a little on contacting a few podlings that seemed to be way out, but were >> not actually against our current branding guidelines. According to the >> list I put together, there are eight that are not in compliance at all with >> the established policies. That policy being that you must include the >> disclaimer, and it must be worded in a specific way. >> >> I asked a few podlings to add the incubator logo. This was mostly because >> most links to the podling were not using the incubator domain. >> >> >>> >>> Where is the threshold between "Present, in footer, smaller font" and the >>> much more colorful "Buried in footer"? Are not footers generally expected >>> to be in a smaller font? >>> >> >> Not saying that at all. The thing I'm trying to weigh is how easily can I >> discern whether this project is fully vetted or not. >> >> If you take Wave for example, while its at the bottom of the page, their >> entire page fits within the fold. If you take Guacamole as another >> example, the placement makes it read as if it were website legal mumbo when >> that's not the intent. The disclaimer isn't a disclaimer about the podling >> website. >> >> >>> >>> Given that it sounds like the footer is generally-accepted sensible place >>> for the disclaimer [2], and that the branding guidelines do not currently >>> strictly require the Incubator logo [3], I'm not sure what the audit is >>> trying to say at this point. >>> >>> >> The audit is to document where we actually stand on the branding asks >> across the podlings as defined today. There seems to be some broad >> statements being made that everyone's out of compliance. I wanted to put >> it in black and white (with blue headers now thanks to Sergio) where each >> podling actually stands. >> >> Think of it as less of a software vendor audit and more like a comic book >> collector audit. I wanted to write down what was in the collection. >> >> Understand that I did this all of my own free will. It was not conceived >> as a private IPMC discussion. > > I don't doubt for a second that this was well-intentioned, but from a > mentor's perspective that may already be guiding a podling through > what - to them - seems like > overly-complex-not-well-documented-nor-understood "rules" having [even > a well-intentioned] IPMC member nit-pick over undocumented pet-peeves > isn't helpful. I'd prefer that we, IPMC, hash out stuff then given > the mentors a chance to work through it since the relationship is > there - otherwise, it can come across as IPMC sniping...
First of all, let me just say that I absolutely appreciate the effort that John is putting into making sure that podlings website appearance reflects their status in ASF as effectively as possible. That said, I also think that we're missing a few tools that can help podlings achieve that and in that sense I can certainly appreciate Tim's frustration. Among these tools is an effective way to graphically reflect the status of the podling without penalizing the visual appeal of their websites. I see that John has opened a separate thread on that -- so I'll reply there. In general, though, I think we may actually need more of a comprehensive style guide to make it as frictionless for podlings to comply as possible. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
