> On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:06, Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Our public doc is still behind the actual state, my bad. Will make sure to
> file a PR tomorrow on the morning. At the Oct 14 governance meeting we agreed
> that:
>
> * We adopt Linux Foundation pre-approved trademark patterns and usage
> guidelines
> * We are not applying requirements retrospectively, everything remains
> approved
> * Until the transition to CDF is over, we may make exceptions in the naming
> policy. Example: precedent in already approved trademarks
>
> The third bullet is where we reserve some freedom at the cost of ambiguity.
> Maybe we need stricter examples. Just forcing the LF guidelines is also the
> option
>
Thanks Oleg!
I read the meeting notes and saw your PR, thanks for that as well.
As far as I can tell, the last time we approved a name following the old
pattern was several years ago, before we started moving to CDF. I think it's
best to start with a clean slate, so I'm -1 on the trademark usage request with
exceptional pattern for now. The name should instead follow the LF guidelines
we decided to use.
(And FWIW I do not consider us continuing to allow previously approved
trademark usages under a different ruleset to be precedent for allowing new
ones; if it was, why even bother adopting the new guidelines?)
--
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/899ABE47-FED2-4441-9D14-ED60FDD5379E%40beckweb.net.
