I'm +1 for accepting the name " VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service" as a valid exception to the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines because it matches the patterns we've used in the past. We're in a transition period as we move towards using the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines and I think this proposed name is reasonable.
I'm not a member of the board, just voicing my opinion by my vote. On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 2:21:29 PM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: > 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/83403e9d-875b-4aa2-9277-b23e0d5c8ab0n%40googlegroups.com.
