Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
In my particular case, I actually consider the process used for the logo selection to be perfectly valid.

My issue is mainly on the precedent this kind of action makes.

The WG charter pretty much already sets in paper that the community, in general, will not have much decision power on the direction of Jakarta EE.
Yes, we'll be heavily involved in the sub-projects themselves, but at the end of the day, any specs, legalese, marketing, direction, and project approval is pretty much out of our hands (with basically a couple of votes in a collective total of three dozen votes, and even no voice on steering or enterprise concerns).

But now, with this move, we're setting a precedent that, if something won't be as quick or nice as the EF likes, they can avoid the very charter we're building for these issues, and do what they want without even letting us know.

This logo issue should be handled by the Marketing WG. And, if they did, having them take unilateral decisions on everything but the last voting stage would be (relatively) ok, since that would be their job as a WG: to handle all those details until they have something solid for the community to vote on.
But, now we're being told (after the fact, no less) that waiting for the Marketing WG to be formed is not a valid option, so the EF is going to just do as they believe better, and let us know at the end?

That's just not an acceptable situation.


Yes, as Jason said in his reply before mine, this is tinted by a mild amount of paranoia, skepticism, whatever you may want to call it.
Does that make it less valid? Not really. The precedent is being set nonetheless. Whether the EF will ever take advantage of it is not relevant here.

To reiterate, I actually agree with how the process was set-up (expert groups writing the rules, then selecting the valid logos from community entries, then the legal teams vetoing process, then a community vote). I already said so in the other thread touching this issue.
My problem is on how this was handled, not only without any communication with the community (remember that we didn't even find out about any of this, before the contest was halfway through, or how the EF's reasons weren't even communicated to us before the other thread was started), but bypassing pretty much every single charter we're building for Jakarta EE.

Mariano Amar

Senior Consultant

email/hangouts: mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx
skype: marianoamar

AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTRÓNICO

Esta comunicación contiene información que es confidencial y también puede contener información privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que cualquier distribución, copia o uso de esta comunicación o la información que contiene está estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha recibido esta comunicación por error por favor notifíquelo por correo electrónico(info@xxxxxxxxxx) o por teléfono (+54 11 3249 7503)

This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx) or phone (+54 11 3249 7503)


On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

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?

On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Richard Monson-Haefel <rmonson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Right. Some were removed for legal reasons but the rest was a subjective decision by the marketing team.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I understood the original mail in a way that from all submissions the EF
removed everything but left over only four due to a pre-selection by their
*marketing* team (not *legal* team).

-Markus


-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org
[mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Heiko W. Rupp
Sent: Freitag, 23. März 2018 20:07
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps

On 23 Mar 2018, at 18:35, Markus KARG wrote:

> I second that. The EF should simply remove those logos which are
> legally problematic, and then let the community vote for their
> favorite. This is a community project, and

Isn't that what
| > *   We will hold a community vote to determine which of these
| > final candidate logos should be the chosen logo.

says?

I understand Paul that the EF needs to (to quote you) "remove those logos
which are legally problematic", which is done by the marketing team, as they
know this process of removal best.

But then I may be wrong.
   Heiko
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


Back to the top