Definitely fine with us! Once again, thank you for your engagement with this one.
On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 2:07:40 PM UTC+1 Oleg Nenashev wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > We had a conversation at the Jenkins Governance meeting last week, and the > consensus was that we are not ready to vote. Our consensus was that > "VirtusLab Operator Service for Jenkins" or similar names represent a > pretty much automatic approval while VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service > needs voting. I do not think there is an exceptional case, IMHO we should > stick to the process. It is a +[1...-1] vote from the community members, > with absolute majority vote in the mailing list and at the next governance > meeting. > > Given your explicit preference for "VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service" , > I think we should start the voting with target of concluding it next week. > Fine with you? > > Best regards, > Oleg Nenashev > > On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 8:12:11 PM UTC+1 [email protected] > wrote: > >> Hi Oleg >> >> Not sure if this was already discussed. Of course if it is possible we >> would definitely prefer *VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service* as it >> clearly indicates intent (it is Jenkins Operator - delivered as service; >> given it is based on Jenkins Operator OSS project). However I do understand >> we could only ask for charitable interpretation here. >> >> Is there anything we could do to be counted as exceptional case? >> >> On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 12:37:51 PM UTC+1 Oleg Nenashev wrote: >> >>> > Your suggestions are very reasonable. I think *VirtusLab Jenkins >>> Operator Service* might be a good name we could use. >>> >>> Following the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines remains the >>> preference IMO, e.g. "VirtusLab Operator Service for Jenkins". Would it >>> work for you? >>> The suggested *VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service* name technically may >>> be approved by the Jenkins Governance Meeting, but it rather for >>> exceptional cases in our current policy. Would be great to get feedback >>> from others ahead of the meeting. >>> >>> > Regarding the Azure Marketplace, is it worth starting to look at >>> someone (guessing it would be the Governance Board?) starting to try and >>> contact the vendors who are supplying the marketplace items to alert them >>> that the names should really be changed (and then starting to look to >>> enforce it later down the track)? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 2:59:48 PM UTC+1 [email protected] >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Your suggestions are very reasonable. I think *VirtusLab Jenkins >>>> Operator Service* might be a good name we could use. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 11:51:18 PM UTC+1 Richard Bywater wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree that I think use of a company name within the title is >>>>> appropriate if it's not part of a base Jenkins community offering. e.g. >>>>> Jenkins Operator Service might be ok for an official Jenkins community >>>>> offering of an Operator Service but not for an offering by a particular >>>>> company. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding the Azure Marketplace, is it worth starting to look at >>>>> someone (guessing it would be the Governance Board?) starting to try and >>>>> contact the vendors who are supplying the marketplace items to alert them >>>>> that the names should really be changed (and then starting to look to >>>>> enforce it later down the track)? >>>>> >>>>> Richard. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 11:31, Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Pawel, >>>>>> >>>>>> TBH I am not sure "Jenkins Operator Service" would be approved, it is >>>>>> too generic. I would definitely hesitate voting for it. There is no >>>>>> precedent of such name being approved before for product names, only for >>>>>> community-focused events and : >>>>>> https://www.jenkins.io/project/trademark/approved-usage/ . Before >>>>>> the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines were adopted, the product >>>>>> names >>>>>> commonly had the "COMPANY_NAME Jenkins Something" or the "Jenkins >>>>>> Something >>>>>> by COMPANY_NAME" naming pattern. It's probably something you could >>>>>> consider. >>>>>> >>>>>> Feedback/suggestions from others would be appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S: As we discussed a few months ago, product naming on public cloud >>>>>> marketplaces is a mess at the moment: >>>>>> https://azuremarketplace.microsoft.com/en-us/marketplace/apps?page=1&search=jenkins >>>>>> >>>>>> . So we still need to maintain a balance in trademark sublicense reviews >>>>>> so >>>>>> that good faith requests do not create disadvantages compared to vendors >>>>>> who do not submit trademark sublicense requests. Maybe a listing of >>>>>> commercial offerings on our site could help with that (similar to >>>>>> https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Commercial+Support which >>>>>> still needs to be moved to jenkins.io) >>>>>> >>>>>> BR, Oleg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:38:18 PM UTC+1 >>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You are right. In case of this name we would need to pursue the >>>>>>> approval from Kubernetes organization. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If possible I think ideal name (from our perspective) would be *Jenkins >>>>>>> Operator* *Service*. I think we could try to agree on some >>>>>>> commitment from our side when it comes to making sure Jenkins & >>>>>>> Kubernetes >>>>>>> is a great match and is being well maintained (but that's obviously >>>>>>> something that would need to be further discuss, if even viable from >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> side). Totally understand if this is not possible though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 12:21:10 PM UTC+1 Oleg Nenashev >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Pawel, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the follow-up and for looking for an alternative name. I >>>>>>>> have added the trademark usage request review/approval to the Dec >>>>>>>> 02 Governance Meeting agenda >>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Nr8QpqYgBiZjORplL_3Zkwys2qK1vEvK-NYyYa4rzg/edit#heading=h.v4sls9rnbtoa>. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's see whether we can reach a consensus in the email list ahead of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One challenge for the naming is that the suggested name (Kubernetes >>>>>>>> Operator Service for Jenkins) uses not only the Jenkins trademark, but >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> "Kubernetes" which is also the Linux Foundation trademark subject to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> same trademark usage rules. It is less of a concern for the Jenkins >>>>>>>> community, but please keep in mind that our approval, if granted, will >>>>>>>> address only the "Jenkins" trademark usage. The "Kubernetes" trademark >>>>>>>> usage is not something we can approve or reject, it is a subject for a >>>>>>>> separate discussion with the trademark owner. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Oleg Nenashev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 12:01:17 PM UTC+1 >>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jenkinsci Board >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are the authors of OSS >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/kubernetes-operator project. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We started building commercial managed offering based on this >>>>>>>>> project - managed version available in Azure marketplace. Given that >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> project is commercial offering built on top of OSS *Jenkins >>>>>>>>> Operator *we wanted to name it *Jenkins Operator Service *(which >>>>>>>>> we thought describes pretty well what it is, managed service for OSS >>>>>>>>> project). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Our initial draft of the offering is here: >>>>>>>>> https://jenkins-operator.com/ (currently private preview). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given trademark guidelines here: >>>>>>>>> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ it seems however >>>>>>>>> that it might be worth to reconsider the suggested name and change it >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> something like: *Kubernetes Operator Service for Jenkins * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is there any way we could apply for sublicensing for using the >>>>>>>>> "Jenkins" word within our product offering naming? If so, what would >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> need to do to apply? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/1a843791-216c-4e15-8f3f-2da0bc680743n%40googlegroups.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/1a843791-216c-4e15-8f3f-2da0bc680743n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> -- Email correspondence is considered personal data processing. Check out our Privacy Policy <https://virtuslab.com/gdpr> for details about the controller of your data and your rights according to GDPR/RODO. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/f397c4ab-a070-47ac-afca-bc21af55b4ebn%40googlegroups.com.
