Spins

[Mike McGrath]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:00:36PM -0400, Chris Tyler wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal.  The spin has been
> > > > approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin.
> > >
> > > Small comment.  The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the
> > > Fedora brand.  This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a
> > > produced and hosted spin in binary format.  All it means is that the
> > > spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora
> > > branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config.  It
> > > would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins
> > > SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin.
> >
> > I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin
> > will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine
> > that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved
> > spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be
> > made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra.
> >
> > We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial
> > spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being
> > used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something
> > that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark.
> >
> > Can we settle on:
> >
> > - "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible
> > to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted
> > by Fedora.
> >
> > - "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into:
> > -- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the
> > Features process, and not h&d by Fedora)
> > -- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features
> > processs, h&d by Fedora)
> >
> > ?
>
> This seems correct to me.  To reiterate, the "Remix" mark/design and
> term were designed to do at least three things:
>
> 1.  Make it possible for anyone who was creating a derivative of
> Fedora to drive additional community interest in our direction, even
> if the derivative can't be promoted here because of its content.
>
> 2.  Decouple the community's ability to make derivatives from the
> trademark approval process.  This way, anyone can create derivatives
> and label them without special permission.
>
> 3.  Remove the "spin" jargon from what people external to our
> community will see.  Only a very small subset of people know the term
> "spin" in the context of Fedora.  Many more people understand "remix"
> because it has almost equivalent meaning in lots of other contexts.
>

So what should we do with a remix that is not approved but also not
unapproved which is the current state of OLPC.  Do we give hosting via
our alt mirror or do we have them wait for full approval.  If it is via
the alt mirror.  What criteria do we have for hosting on alt?  I can throw
some guidelines together if no one else cares / has opinions on it.

	-Mike