As I'm missing tomorrow's meeting, Oleg echos my own feeling. No strong objections but no real evidence other than "we would like it"
On Tue., Dec. 15, 2020, 1:19 p.m. Oleg Nenashev, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/46fcd216-556e-470e-a176-06ee092eb177n%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/CAG%3D_DuvcgD6DoWm%2B_JAJXHhKVS86toMZ_uL1fHT1n2B_E0cDUg%40mail.gmail.com.
