[Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks

[John Poelstra]

Paul W. Frields said the following on 07/15/2009 12:56 PM Pacific Time:
> Sorry, arriving late to email today.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:56:15PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:53 -0500, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600,
>>>   Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> wrote:
>>>> 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for
>>>> life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it? 
>>> There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't
>> documented
>>> yet.
>>>
>> Off the record, since yes, it is not documented (very well or at all);
>>
>> - all previously approved spins (for Fedora N) go back to status
>> "Incomplete" or "Development" after Fedora N's General Availability and for
>> the development cycle of Fedora N+1
>>
>> - formally, the spin goes through the entire process again, including
>> "Review by Spins SIG" and including "Trademark approval by Board"
>>
>> - informally, this means that the board would not need to (re-)approve a
>> spin's trademark usage, if there's not at all that many changes -after all,
>> it's mostly tweaking the spin a little further, implementing new features
>> in the development cycle of Fedora N+1, etc, rather then rebuilding the
>> spin from the ground up and doing all kinds of nasty changes.
>>
>> Now, what is considered a major change or what is considered "too many
>> changes" in order for the recurring trademark approval to need to pass the
>> board once more, is not set in stone. The Spins SIG obviously has a policy
>> of "when in doubt, ask board".
> 
> And that seems completely reasonable to me.
> 
>> As an example, we have the Electronic Labs spin; it's changing it's base
>> desktop environment from KDE to GNOME (by means of including the
>> -desktop.ks instead of the -kde.ks).
>>
>> The Spins SIG at this moment considers this a major change, but since the
>> basis of the change is still an approved and "permanent" spin, we don't
>> expect the board to require (re-)approval of the spin's trademark usage.
>>
>> Does this make sense and if so, does it make sense to document it as such?
>>
>> If not, what are we overlooking?
> 
> Yes to both.
> 
>>>> 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the
>>>> Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin? 
>> I guess the above (or the answers to the above) would also (partly) answer
>> this question.
> 
> As you noted Jeroen, there isn't a hard and fast rule because we think
> the Spins SIG has the ability to discern what's a major (or arguably
> major) change.  The Board retains the responsibility of approving
> trademark usage, and could require a resubmission when deemed
> necessary.  But in most cases questions can be resolved here fairly
> quickly.
> 

Have the questions in this thread been adequately addressed?  If not, 
what specific questions does the board still need to address and I'll 
make sure they are carried forward to our queue of issues to discuss.

Thanks,
John