Meeting:Board meeting 2009-07-23

Roll Call
In attendance: John Poelstra, Mike McGrath, Paul Frields, Josh Boyer, Bill Nottingham, Matt Domsch, Tom Callaway, Christopher Aillon, Dimitris Glezos, Dennis Gilmore

Regrets: None

Last meeting
Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-16

Russian Fedora Initiative

 * LAST STATUS:
 * Paul to deliver agreements to responsible parties in RU
 * UPDATE:
 * Paul to first resolve questions with RH Legal about non-software goods licensing

Extended Life Cycle

 * LAST STATUS:
 * Board needs more clarity on what they're being asked to agree to
 * ACTION: Dennis to discuss with Jeroen
 * UPDATE:
 * Open thread on FAB
 * Boyer reports Jeroen working on clarifications: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00054.html
 * No substantial update to wiki page as of this writing
 * PROPOSED:
 * Nothing further until request for more information answered
 * approved

Spin Trademarks
"The trademark is reserved for spins that the Board has approved. This includes testing versions of these spins such as official Alpha and Beta composes, periodic test composes, and test day images." Kevin's questions: 1. Blessed for life 2. Approval in 1 is sufficient 3. No 4. N/A Rahul's question: Q: Can rawhide images carry the trademark? A: Yes, if they are Rawhide versions for testing based on the approved spins. Otherwise, normal TM guidelines apply.
 * BACKGROUND:
 * Kevin Fenzi asks:
 * Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it?
 * Do I need board approval for any Xfce compose thats not made by rel-eng in an "official" capacity on fedora infrastructure? Or does the approval in 1 work for this? We want to make weekly test releases of a rawhide Xfce spin, do we need to request approval for each?
 * 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?
 * If the answer to those is that approval is needed, does using 'generic-logos' bypass that? And how much would that invalidate our testing as we are not testing the thing that will be composed and shipped.
 * Rahul added these questions:
 * May rawhide snapshot images carry the Fedora trademarks? If so, in what situations? QA test days? Individual developers?  Spin owners?  Anyone?
 * PROPOSED:
 * The trademark should be reserved for the things the Board specifically approves for release, which includes the actual release candidates for test phases up through final GA. For anything else, the Board's approval is required, and the Board should normally not entertain requests for midstream test images. This would put any community member or team that wants to release test images on a level playing field, and erases any confusion by a downstream consumer over whether something is official Fedora. The removal of fedora-{logos, release, release-notes} and substitution of generic-* presents an exceedingly low risk for regressions and any other problems. If one is found, that's grounds for bug filing and fixing in the distribution.
 * Addenda/clarifications, i.e. additional proposed answers:
 * What rel-eng produces is blessed by definition.
 * Answers to Kevin's questions, in order:
 * 1. Blessed for life unless there's a substantial change.
 * 2. Use generic-* as noted above.
 * 3. Due to 2., no.
 * 4. Use of generic-* is required. Impact is supposed to be negligible.  If it's not, behavior is a bug that should be fixed so that remixers are not negatively impacted.
 * Answers to Rahul's questions: No in all cases.  Use generic-* packages. Regressions caused by this requirement should be reported for upstream resolution in Fedora.
 * Possible problems:
 * If spins are required to put things in spin-kickstarts, shuffling of code when they switch from generic-* to fedora-* as we approach release
 * Test days that focus on artwork and branding would require a special exception; ponderous
 * Poelstra asks: Are there two issues here?
 * perception that a test release would be perceived as final <-- risk seems very low
 * dilution of the trademark <-- risk unclear (to poelstra)
 * New proposal:


 * RESOLUTION: Board unanimously approves new proposal and has answered questions submitted.
 * ACTION: Paul to revise TM guidelines, in coordination with Legal, and return to Board for final approval.

Move to fp.o email
RESOLUTION: No further board actions on this topic. It is considered closed.
 * BACKGROUND
 * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00062.html
 * PROPOSED:
 * Dennis Gilmore and Jon Stanley own this in their roles as Infrastructure participants.
 * There is no extant Board issue so this issue may be closed.

Next meeting

 * PROPOSED: Thu 2009-07-30 UTC 1600
 * approved