After some consideration, I have decided to cast my "0" vote ahead of the tomorrow's meeting at 6PM UTC. I do not feel too strongly to vote against the new name, but at the same time I do not see evidence which would support an exception. It was me pushing for LF trademark guidelines adoption at the end of the day. I am happy to support the approval if the community votes for that though.
More feedback from other contributors would be much appreciated! BR, Oleg On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 11:34:41 AM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > 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> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- 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/46fcd216-556e-470e-a176-06ee092eb177n%40googlegroups.com.
