Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy

2011-08-11 Thread Christoph Noack
Hi Tom, all!

A quick note ... mis-using the steering-discuss being an SC deputy.

Am Mittwoch, den 10.08.2011, 10:35 +0100 schrieb Tom Davies:
 Sounds good to me but i'm curious about the Branding Team's thoughts on this. 
  
 Italo?

I'm not Italo, but I'm one of those who (with Bernhard, Nik, Ivan, ...)
developed the today's branding. Personally, I would be happy if we could
ship the non-tagline logo - and add the tagline on demand. This will
make things more simple and even more visually attractive.

When we worked on the motif design, Nik already made a draft how this
could look like:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/b/b3/ScatterInContext_bunch.jpg

So +1 to the proposal.

One thing that - then - needs to be addressed is the todays tagline
logo. Later this year, I'd like to propose a small revision to make
non-tagline and tagline logo more consistent.

Cheers,
Christoph


 From: Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org
 To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
 Sent: Wed, 10 August, 2011 9:25:05
 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
 
 Hi,
 
 Andre Schnabel wrote on 2011-08-08 13:17:
  ... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least this
  was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should
  be used for instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document
  Foundation.
  
  Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds
  from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people
  to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed
  via TDF resources.
 
 that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think?


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy

2011-08-11 Thread Andre Schnabel
Hi,

 Von: Charles-H. Schulz
 
 I'd +1 Thorsten's short summary, but does it work with Debian rules?

yes - it daoes, bacuse ...

 Le 10 août 2011 14:34, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org a
 écrit :

 
  The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo
  website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not
  permitted, unless permission explicitely granted.


Debian can just use the LibreOffice logo (without TDF tagline), as they
build from source without major modifications.

Again - the only problem i see is that the TDF-tagged Logo is the default.

And - we already have two logos, so there is no additional effort in 
creating and maintaining a second logo. 

regards,

André

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy

2011-08-11 Thread Caolan McNamara
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:31 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
 Caolan McNamara wrote:
Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for 
builds
from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell 
people
to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed
via TDF resources.
   
   that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think?
  
  Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing
  however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force
  maintainable of duplicate logos, etc.
  
 It makes the whole thing much more consistent, therefore it makes a
 lot of sense to me.
 
 The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo
 website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not
 permitted, unless permission explicitely granted.

Alright, swap the logos, default to non TDF one.

a) The current with TDF logos are the ones in default_images/brand for
the about box, the splashscreen and the backing window
b) We have a --with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap for custom
splash and about pngs
c) So move the current ones to e.g. a TDF brand dir, grab the non-TDF
pngs from somewhere and stick those into the generic dir
d) Then for all the distro-config/*conf where the vendor is The
Document Foundation add --with-intro-bitmap/--with-about-bitmap to
point them to the TDF branded ones

So...

a) Where are the appropriate non-TDF about, intro *and* backing window
images ? Do they exist somewhere already ?
b) Looks like we don't have an option for selecting an alternative set
of backing window pngs (default_images/brand/shell) ? Is there another
way to do that already, or should we re-work and simplify
--with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap to be a single
--with-brand-images which points to a dir that contains a full set of
intro, about and backing window images

C.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


off-list Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy

2011-08-11 Thread Tom Davies
Hi :)
Thanks for jumping in there :)  I hoped there were other people from Branding 
around or at least other people that might have some vague idea about the 
issues.  


It's ok for the rest of us to guess but it's better to have the right answers 
from the right people because there is a strong chance of the rest of us 
getting 
it wrong and falling into 'obvious' traps.  Italo was the only name i knew for 
certain.  

Thanks and regards from
Tom :)





From: Christoph Noack christ...@dogmatux.com
To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Thu, 11 August, 2011 7:08:01
Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy

Hi Tom, all!

A quick note ... mis-using the steering-discuss being an SC deputy.

Am Mittwoch, den 10.08.2011, 10:35 +0100 schrieb Tom Davies:
 Sounds good to me but i'm curious about the Branding Team's thoughts on this. 
  

 Italo?

I'm not Italo, but I'm one of those who (with Bernhard, Nik, Ivan, ...)
developed the today's branding. Personally, I would be happy if we could
ship the non-tagline logo - and add the tagline on demand. This will
make things more simple and even more visually attractive.

When we worked on the motif design, Nik already made a draft how this
could look like:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/b/b3/ScatterInContext_bunch.jpg


So +1 to the proposal.

One thing that - then - needs to be addressed is the todays tagline
logo. Later this year, I'd like to propose a small revision to make
non-tagline and tagline logo more consistent.

Cheers,
Christoph


 From: Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org
 To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
 Sent: Wed, 10 August, 2011 9:25:05
 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
 
 Hi,
 
 Andre Schnabel wrote on 2011-08-08 13:17:
  ... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least this
  was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should
  be used for instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document
  Foundation.
  
  Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds
  from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people
  to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed
  via TDF resources.
 
 that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think?


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


[steering-discuss] List discussion purpose

2011-08-11 Thread Charles-H. Schulz
Hi,

This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been setup
to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it
accomodates SC members  requests from project members. While we do
appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on other
lists.

Thank you everyone!

Charles.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion purpose

2011-08-11 Thread drew
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:10 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
 Hi,
 
 This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been setup
 to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it
 accomodates SC members  requests from project members. While we do
 appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on other
 lists.

Hi Charles.

With all due respect and specifically with regards to the last sentence
above - perhaps having this list at all was a mistake.

There is a private mailing list for the SC members use when _absolutely_
required, is there not? 

For all other items it seems appropriate to just use the same lists as
the rest of us.

Sincerely,

Drew Jensen


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion purpose

2011-08-11 Thread Charles-H. Schulz
Hi Drew,

While there's a list for confidential matters we intend and want to have a
dexision making process that's transparent. This list was designed with the
notion that it'd be both a formal tool (voting, opinions of the BoD
members, etc.) and a communication tool for important an urgent matters. My
opinion is that if we were to switch over to the discuss list decisions
would be lost in endless threads, not followed by developers and in a few
weeks you'd find yourself with less communication and unclear decision
making. I think we want to have this list precisely because we want avoid
distraction and create a more solemn / official list.

Best,

Charles.
Le 11 août 2011 19:26, drew d...@baseanswers.com a écrit :
 On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:10 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
 Hi,

 This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been
setup
 to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it
 accomodates SC members  requests from project members. While we do
 appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on
other
 lists.

 Hi Charles.

 With all due respect and specifically with regards to the last sentence
 above - perhaps having this list at all was a mistake.

 There is a private mailing list for the SC members use when _absolutely_
 required, is there not?

 For all other items it seems appropriate to just use the same lists as
 the rest of us.

 Sincerely,

 Drew Jensen


 --
 Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
 Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
 List archive:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
 All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion purpose

2011-08-11 Thread David Nelson
Hi,

I find this list to be a very useful point of contact with the SC. If
people avoid using it for other purposes than discussions in which
there is a genuine utility in involving the SC then SC members will be
encouraged to read it regularly and properly, and the list will indeed
serve its true purpose.

-- 
David Nelson

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion purpose

2011-08-11 Thread Florian Effenberger

Hello,

let me jump in quickly with a few thoughts:

- The set-up of this list was discussed in one of last year's steering 
commitee public conference calls, and if I remember correctly, it was 
even a demand by the community, not by the steering committee. (Which 
does not mean we do not consider it a good idea.)


- The purpose of this list is for the steering committee to discuss on 
topics. Others of course can jump in, but let's not forget we have a 
discuss mailing list that serves what it's name has: discussion. So, the 
topics on this list indeed should *only* be related to things concerning 
steering committee decisions. Traffic on this list should be kept rather 
low, main discussions should take place on the discuss list. I myself 
will try to follow that idea better in the future, I've also swamped the 
steering-discuss list with topics that would have belonged to a 
different list.


- Yes, there is a private list, and there are private calls. This has 
not been kept in secret, we've stated that several times at various 
places. We try to discuss as many things in public as possible, and our 
bylaws also have that we make private items public when possible.


One recent example for that is the letter of intent we sent regarding 
OpenOffice.org. During that discussion, it was crucial to not have it 
public - especially when dealing with corporations, there are of course 
topics that are to be kept confidential. I hope it is obvious to 
everyone why we could not discuss some internals of the things happening 
at OpenOffice.org in public. It was simply not possible, and if we 
hadn't have a chance to discuss it in private, we would have been forcd 
to keep out of it totally, which is not ideal. When the discussion phase 
has ended, we made the letter public, so everyone could read the contents.


So, please, everyone, calm down a bit. What Charles tried to say is that 
we should keep the focus of this list, and move other discussions on 
their appropriate list, e.g. discuss@tdf.


I agree that having a private list is always connected to some bad 
feelings, but I hope you see there are justified reasons for having 
that. Again, we discuss anything in public that is possible, and the 
topics that are discussed in private will be made public afterwards if 
that is feasible.


Nothing on our principle of transparency, openness and meritocracy has 
changed. I give you my word on that.


Florian

--
Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted