On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 6/26/12 4:07 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dave Fisher wrote: > >>> > >>> Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry > >>> for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours. > >> > >> > >> Was it really necessary? In the meantime, Rob had edited the blog > entries to > >> insert: > >> > >> (Apache OpenOffice is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache > Software > >> Foundation.) > >> > >> and this seems a good trade-off to me, much more than adding > "(incubating)" > >> to the title, which will confuse users, especially non-native speakers > (but > >> also native speakers won't always be able to guess what "incubating" > means > >> in this context). > >> > > > > +1. > > > > In fact, if you look at the IPMC's requirements for this, they are > > here: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html > > > > "Naming > > > > After a podling has been approved, the lists are created, and the > > initial code drop has commenced, the podling MUST be referred to as > > Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention that the project is under > > Incubation. Suitable mentions include: > > > > -- Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"; URL > > --- Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation at the > > Apache Software Foundation. > > > > Other references may only be used upon prior approval by the Incubator > > PMC. These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first > > reference in a document." > > > > Note that two incubation-disclaimers are given, and that neither one > > of them are what Dave did. > > I am wondering as well and I agree that it was somewhat superfluous. But > we shouldn't stress it any longer and should focus on the right actions > forward to graduate. > > I think that is the best thing we can do... I personally don't have > interest in any further teaching lesson. > > Juergen > OK, I think some of the confusion comes from a previous OK of referring to the product as "Apache OpenOffice (TM)" vs the project -- Apache OpenOffice (incubating). see ref on the former at: http://markmail.org/message/tnufz5cnoueh57ci with a later follow-up that this "internal" TM would at some point become "registered" when Apache OpenOffice (incubating) graduated -- normally TM registrations only occur on top level projects. Oddly, despite the fact that we refer to the "product" as just Apache OpenOffice, I remember some discussion and the final outcome that the packages are named with "incubating" as part of the name. Yeah, very confusing to say the least... > > > > >> Honestly, I'd be for linking "undergoing Incubation" (in the clauses Rob > >> added) to Don's post > https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling or > >> some more official explanation, and removing "(incubating)" from the > titles. > >> > >> This would give all interested parties the opportunity to discover what > >> "incubating" means, which is probably the rationale behind the rule to > use > >> "(incubating)" everywhere, and at the same time would keep titles easily > >> readable. > >> > > > > +1 > > > > One issue, I think, is that users have no idea what "(incubating)" > > means. I had one user write me and joke about aliens in pods. We > > shouldn't be leading with out-of-context internal Apache process > > jargon. Perhaps that is why the Podling Branding Guide makes the > > suggestions it does, and which I had already made to the post. > > > > -Rob > > > >> Regards, > >> Andrea. > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "I would rather have a donkey that takes me there than a horse that will not fare." -- Portuguese proverb
