Mike,
your last statement, which completely ignores what has been said is not acceptable. You are simply being uncooperative and obstinate. It reflects very badly on you, this process, and the EF. Do you serve the community or do you rule the community? You can’t be an autocrat and a public servant at the same time. So tell us, Mike, which are you?
Richard
On 2018-03-23 4:27 PM, Jason Greene
wrote:
I read that differently. My interpretation is: They just
eliminated candidates that failed to meet the design criteria,
which did include a basic legal component. The next step is a
more thorough legal analysis as well as a brand review from
the foundation’s marketing team. From that process they will
pick the strongest contenders. Both of these functions are
pretty standard (Also really important for major industry
marks) and based on expertise & analysis, and while we all
have some biases, I seriously doubt this is driven by simple
personal preferences.
This is correct. We removed the ones that did not meet the design
criteria as stated in writing. This included removing the ones that
we knew had legal issues. Now we are going to do more reviews,
including deeper legal ones.
The community will have an opportunity to select from a number of
options.
Is the concern more that there will be too few options and
you guys might not like the options, or is it that there is
some nefarious purpose? If it’s the latter what would they
have to gain?
Right. Some were removed for legal reasons
but the rest was a subjective decision by the marketing
team.
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
