Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PROCESS CHANGE: Dissolving TradeMark Commitee #1399

Closed
nainaz opened this issue Jul 13, 2023 · 12 comments · Fixed by #1506
Closed

PROCESS CHANGE: Dissolving TradeMark Commitee #1399

nainaz opened this issue Jul 13, 2023 · 12 comments · Fixed by #1506
Assignees

Comments

@nainaz
Copy link
Contributor

nainaz commented Jul 13, 2023

As we are part of CNCF we no longer need Trademark Committee.
Current charter for Trademark commitee is as following:

1. Advise the Trademark owner on the definition and enforcement of the "Knative" trademark usage and branding guidelines.
2. Review and approve conformance rules and tests
3. Define brand use decisions.
4. Review and approve the scope and definition of additional derivative Knative marks (e.g. Knative Serving, Knative Core, etc).

Only the Trademark Committee can redefine its own charter, membership, and authority over Knative Trademark, conformance, and brand decisions.

At SC and TOC we believe that Conformance should and can be handled by TOC (point 2) and point 1 and 4 are no longer needed. SC will handle brand use guidelines (point 3).
Since only TM can redefine its own charter, membership and authority.
Please let us know your thoughts and wishes.

  1. If two members vote for it to be dissolved at the next scheduled meeting and hand it over the conformance program to TOC. Committee could be dissolved.

Proposed

1. [Managed by TOC] Review and approve conformance rules and tests
2. [Managed by SC] Define brand use decisions.

Only the Trademark Committee can redefine its own charter, membership, and authority over Knative Trademark, conformance, and brand decisions.

P.S: No meeting has happened since Feb 2023 due to no quorum.

@nainaz
Copy link
Contributor Author

nainaz commented Jul 13, 2023

@dprotaso
Copy link
Member

At SC and TOC we believe that Conformance should and can be handled by TOC

I don't recall this being discussed at any TOC meeting. In my mind define brand use decisions. doesn't fall under TOC but probably steering

@xtreme-sameer-vohra
Copy link
Contributor

I don't recall this being discussed at any TOC meeting. In my mind define brand use decisions. doesn't fall under TOC but probably steering

Does it make sense to split point 2 as

  • TOC - Review and approve conformance rules and tests
  • SC - Define brand use criteria

@nainaz
Copy link
Contributor Author

nainaz commented Jul 31, 2023

Agree with @xtreme-sameer-vohra maybe splitting in two is the answer.
As part of dissolving process, may be you can add that @xtreme-sameer-vohra and @smoser-ibm @mchmarny

@smoser-ibm
Copy link
Contributor

@nainaz asked me to vote , and I am unclear how to do that other than adding a comment that i am OK with dissolving today TM committee and continuing the conformance work via the TOC, as proposed above by @xtreme-sameer-vohra

@xtreme-sameer-vohra
Copy link
Contributor

Agree with @xtreme-sameer-vohra maybe splitting in two is the answer. As part of dissolving process, may be you can add that @xtreme-sameer-vohra and @smoser-ibm @mchmarny

Hey @nainaz
I updated the issue description to cover the split between SC & TOC.
With that change in mind, I am also in favor of dissolving the TM committee.

@nainaz
Copy link
Contributor Author

nainaz commented Sep 11, 2023

Thank you @smoser-ibm and @xtreme-sameer-vohra

@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented Sep 11, 2023

@jberkus

SC's and my understanding is that we can dissolve the TM committee now and transfer the responsibilities to SC and TOC, as written above.

My idea of proceeding is:

Does this make sense?

@evankanderson
Copy link
Member

Related #1161

@evankanderson evankanderson moved this from 🆕 New to 🏗 In progress in Steering Committee Backlog Dec 19, 2023
@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented Feb 1, 2024

We discussed this with @jberkus and the way above seems reasonable

@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented Feb 3, 2024

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants