On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Helen wrote:

...

I personally have mixed feelings about this - the fact that OBS has openSUSE in its name helps to get the openSUSE name 'out there' as its use becomes more popular, but I agree that there is a strong implication for users that it is only for openSUSE. The other reasons raised by Gumb are also valid ones.

OBS is the beating heart of openSUSE, I don't see any problem in having 'openSUSE' on a platform as OBS.

Agreed

What is being propused is called 'repositioning', this is one of the hardest and most risky (if not the most risky at all) operation you can do from a marketing perspective. No one takes lightly to change an established brand name or service without a strong motive. None of the motives seem strong enough, and the work should deployed in a different way, but that not for me to decide.

I don't think that changing the name (specially when it has strong roots in the industry already) will solve the problem around attractivity to OBS. What can solve the attractive problem around OBS is to increase exponentially (in a viral  way) the number of users of the openSUSE.

Lets imagine an hypothetical situation based on 'Facebook' numbers, since I don't have metrics for the userbase of openSUSE and Ubuntu (official channels):

Per https://build.opensuse.org/ == The openSUSE Build Service hosts 17,298 projects, with 115,652 packages, in 28,949 repositories and is used by 26,656 confirmed users. == I find those pretty impressive numbers. I hope the name stays where it is with that proven level of success. (Remember, that's effectively 26,656 developers / contributors, because OBS is not used by typical end users.) One thing that is not shown and may not be known is the number of private instances of the OBS are running out there. Maybe the number of appliance downloads per release could be added to the above stats.

Ubuntu: 328275 likes on facebook openSUSE: 2779 likes on facebook

If I was a developer to launch an application, I would probably choose launchad/ubuntu because I knew before hand that Ubuntu would enable a higher potential user base for my application. This is simple common sense.

OBS can build/publish for ubuntu. I suspect that is why some want to change the name.

In a very simple way we are in the content distribution world, we distribute contents in the form of software. It's a service, it aims for people, that's the very own minimum denominator here. So we should actually look into a way of becoming more attractive to users and investors, and a strategy for that can be delievering a higher number of contents.

In a real sense, OBS is already very successful and getting more so.

For example... Ubuntu plays this well... from a simple package, they create like 7/8 sub-packages, then they have over 32K packages as they advertise (look at a screenshot of their Software Center and how they explore this concept to brutalize users perception). Users who have done some packaging or developed something, they know this is a fairy tale and a 'marketing move', but for those without tech skills, they might believe it's the best choice due to the ammount of packages available, eventhough the largest part of them are futile for end users... And when they eventually might realize it, they have already a loyalty bond with Ubuntu and won't swap.

Are you suggesting openSUSE start advertizing 115,652 packages, in 28,949 repositories on the openSUSE Build Service! As you say, it is highly misleading if one is really talking about why choose openSUSE 11.4 vs. ubuntu. OTOH, for a lot of developers, it is highly relevant to see OBS has so much participation.

I believe on this at least... without a strong user base, we might not become attractive enough for developers to use OBS to distribute their software, because our user base isn't large enough. Maybe what developers love is probably that everyone picks their software and use it? Maybe that's the missing link.

That reads as if you assume OBS is not successful. I feel the opposite. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 20:35:24 jdd wrote:

Le 02/02/2011 19:50, Greg Freemyer a écrit :

...

Are you suggesting openSUSE start advertizing 115,652 packages, in 28,949 repositories on the openSUSE Build Service!

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

having *one* line in the opensuse.org screen with "today xxxxxxxxxxx packages in OBS" would be really great!!

OBS could also be "Opensource Build Service :-))"

but it would be great if say ubuntu setup an OBS instance and start helping maintaining the product!

MeeGo already does ;-) I doubt Ubuntu will do that within the next 10 years (hehe) but Mageia actually was/is thinking about this (and a rename would help them choose - using "the openSUSE Build Service" to build your distribution is weird but using the Open Build Service makes sense. I suspect that is also the reason why MeeGo calls OBS the open build service or just build service - it's easier for them to justify the use of it.

jdd

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Jos Poortvliet wrote: <snip>

...

That reads as if you assume OBS is not successful.  I feel the opposite.

Indeed. It is popular but could be more so ;-)

BTW we also need to do more in the area of USING those huge numbers. For marketing but also community building purposes. How could we get the tens of thousands who use OBS to contribute to openSUSE? After all, they're VERY close to openSUSE already - it's just pushing a few buttons to submit their packages to factory or request merges with existing packages to fix bugs.

I don't think it is necessarily that simple. First, I _assume_ lots of those 100+K packages are the same package just in lots of repos. For instance each of the main packages is probably in at least a devel package, factory, 11.3, 11.2, 11.1 discontinued. Admittedly, each of those may be at a different version level/patch level. But 100+K packages is a highly misleading number I suspect. And then for lots of smaller packages, I don't think they are really built for distro use. First, many don't have man pages for executables, which I think is required in the push to factory. Another example is open2300. I packaged it because I use it, but it generates a dozen or so executables. All *2300 (open2300, log2300, etc.). I can't envision putting that in factory that way. The names really need to be changed to 2300* (2300open, 2300log, etc), but the upstream project is basically dead, so I don't see it happening there. I may get it into the distro eventually, but for now I'm happy with it in a devel project. So OBS for open2300 is giving me exactly what I want. A way to publish a little known/used app without the more formal requirements appropriate to a full distro release. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 19:50:24 Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Helen wrote:

...

I personally have mixed feelings about this - the fact that OBS has openSUSE in its name helps to get the openSUSE name 'out there' as its use becomes more popular, but I agree that there is a strong implication for users that it is only for openSUSE. The other reasons raised by Gumb are also valid ones.

OBS is the beating heart of openSUSE, I don't see any problem in having 'openSUSE' on a platform as OBS.

Agreed

I personally don't see it as a big issue directly - the only issue with it is that people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Build openSUSE Software".

If people see it that way, maybe it's marketing failure? As you state and I quote: «hat people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Buil openSUSE Software".» This only points failure on marketing practices, marketing efforts are failing in passing the message, but in reality, it's not actually far from the reality. OBS plays it's role, it enables all the contents distributed in openSUSE Linux distribution. Maybe before we can be attractive to developers we have to be attractive to end users, so that they ditch their distribution repositories and use ours (which isn't supported by any distribution). So for you to succeded this is probably one of the issues that needs to be worked out first... Make OBS a repository of reference to other distributions.

The discussions and chats I've had at several conferences including the latest LCA clearly brought that forward and I think those of you who've been at conferences have heard the same sentiments. Now the scope of the Build Service is much wider than that and this misconception is hurting at least some of our uptake. The marketing team is fighting this perception all the time.

From a talk I had with someone I met on OSC, I actually asked him why they didn't used devel snapshots through OBS. The answer I got was... every distribution has packagers, they do that for me, why would I want to waste time on that? I don't package, I do other more important things.

The brand is currently usually abbreviated as OBS - and known (in writing) like that. MeeGo actually calls it 'open build service' already, as do many other people. I wouldn't argue yet that 'open build service' is already the de-facto name, but it's going in that direction.

Once more, this could indicate severe marketing strategy failure. Careful with such statements.

So there is a reason to rename it: do something about a misconception which is hurting uptake.

The reason to rebrand and reposition a well established service is based on an hypothetical marketing failure? Maybe it's time for you to drop Darwinism and maybe be more mindful of Smith/Drucker/Kotler, as they will provide an answer for your problems.

Reasons not to do it: 1 we diminish the link between openSUSE and OBS 2 we loose some brand value due to the repositioning

1 & 2 - will only happen if Marketing doesn't take action to support the whole repositioning (this is where the fat budgets play there role).

On 1, I don't see this as a real issue as OBS is and will be principally developed by openSUSE - and as I wrote before, the culture of 'credit where credit is due' in FOSS protects us in this regard as well.

Unless you want to make of OBS a fully commercial product, that makes no sense.

2 is really minimal - OBS is the name most known and won't change; moreover many people already call it open build service (or even just 'the build service' which is actually really good for us I would say - saying OBS is the de-facto standard build service).

Interesting... A "build service" builds something, that's how someone probably will face it. As I face it, it's an outstanding distribution platform, to feed or distribute contents. There is a difference, and if you think closely, it might be more benefic for OBS to be promoted as a distribution platform, at least it sounds far more appealing to me, and the fact is has a HUGE 'OPENSUSE' in it's name can only benefit openSUSE as a Linux distribution.

Hence I believe the reason to do it eclipses the reasons not to do it.

Just trying to prevent a situation like the one portraited partially on [1]. If you look carefully, that entry is quite a powerful example. That entry suggests that picking KDE as the default Desktop actually didn't brought the expected user base to openSUSE. And changing back to GNOME will only hurt us more, because you are endangering hurting users and paint us like if we don't know what we're doing. I hope OBS will not be the subject of such changes every once in a while. It kills consumer trust, and we want to build relations with users based on trust so we can build loyalty. Changing all the time will only hurt what we're trying to build. [1] - https://features.opensuse.org/311023

On the facebook thing, I doubt our number likes on facebook for openSUSE have much if anything to do with uptake of OBS. Not to say we shouldn't try to increase that number...

Depends... you are only seeing one side of the problem, you neglect still that we work to provide contents to people and to show people that our contents/software is a reliable option. It makes all sense to me that the more contents we serve, the more attractive we will be for those making the contents. I'm sure that making such a risky maneuvre because a group of people call it something else is rather naive. This email expresses a personal opinion and therefore there is no right or wrong, just a point of view. NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

Am Mittwoch, 2. Februar 2011, 22:31:18 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 22:20:00 Nelson Marques wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Jos Poortvliet

wrote:

...

...

I personally don't see it as a big issue directly - the only issue with it is that people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Build openSUSE Software".

If people see it that way, maybe it's marketing failure? As you state and I quote:

«hat people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Buil openSUSE Software".»

This only points failure on marketing practices, marketing efforts are failing in passing the message, but in reality, it's not actually far from the reality. OBS plays it's role, it enables all the contents distributed in openSUSE Linux distribution.

Yes, it is failing marketing: choosing a wrong name, duh. openSUSE Build Service as a name quite strongly suggests that it's for openSUSE... And that is the problem. Surely OBS does that, but it does more - and the name doesn't support that. It IS a marketing failure.

Interestingly enough, at LCA I attended a talk by a Red Hat developer about KOJI. It's Red Hat's/Fedora's build service. It's massively worse than OBS - you CAN build packages for other distro's but it's quite hard. The whole thing is much harder to use, can't cross-compile for other platforms and has to run on your own machine. Still, many people were interested in it. And part of that is because the name doesn't signal any distro-specificity.

Just my 2cent on this: * I think when using the just the term "OBS" more strictly and avoiding the full name, the problem would reduce a lot. * A rename should always consider the available DNS domains ;) * OBS as term itself is actually less import for the end users. They just see the result. A reason why the "PPA" term from ubuntu is so intrusive. IMHO we need to finished this feature ASAP: https://features.opensuse.org/310109 and we need to find a cool and marketing-able name for (similar to 1-click- install). This would reach way more people (in best case also some non openSUSE users) and we have the chance in the second step to educate them also better about OBS. We will grow afterwards. This feature just waits for a web developer since a longer time creating a good proposal. The pure coding part will be realtive minimal, I think. Have fun on FOSDEM adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

Am Donnerstag, 3. Februar 2011, 01:31:24 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 22:57:02 Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

Am Mittwoch, 2. Februar 2011, 22:31:18 schrieb Jos Poortvliet: ... Just my 2cent on this:

* I think when using the just the term "OBS" more strictly and avoiding the

full name, the problem would reduce a lot.

Well, ppl always want to know what it means - and "open (or openSUSE) build service" is a good start of an explanation. So I don't think this will really solve the issue.

...

* A rename should always consider the available DNS domains ;)

hehehe yes, that is true... But doesn't openbuildservice.org already redirect to build.opensuse.org? Seems like we could go for that name then... Yes?

This particular one is indeed owned by me (privately). But there are also others, some of them pointing also to build.o.o, but they still want to hand it over only under some conditions (money or others). That is something what I don't even want to start about. One aspect, which should not be forgotten is that OBS is developed still by 99% from SUSE employees. We have meanwhile a core team of 3 people and that size is only existing, because is OBS is used also for SUSE Linux Enterprise and a variete of further SUSE and Novell products and services. This is of course another good reason to rename it away from "openSUSE", but SUSE/Novell as company is the main developer (and openSUSE is just a user in first place so far regarding the efforts), so we need to sync with our buisiness folks here. One of them (Kurt Garloff) made actually a suggestion some month ago to rename it to "OBS Build Service". This is in the tradition of the Gnu tools and also rpm (RedHat Package Manager -> rpm package manager) is a good example. It also strength the "OBS" term itself IMHO. I personally like this suggestion and would slightly prefer it to open-build- service (but I have no strong opinion here). But you may want to discuss it on FOSDEM. Btw, when we have finally decided about a new name, I would use the new DNS name to present OBS as technology and of course link to some real life instances. But it would be not the same as build.o.o, which is the openSUSE instance.

...

* OBS as term itself is actually less import for the end users. They just see the result. A reason why the "PPA" term from ubuntu is so intrusive.

True, for end-users the whole thing is very different. But this was mostly prompted by the issue with explaining this to packagers and other more technical people...

But the idea behind this is to get users first and convert some of them to packagers afterwards ;) And every packager is anyway a user, so he will have first contact with this. Esp. when comming from a non-SUSE distro and gets surprised via some web page that software.opensuse.org also offers for his distro stuff ;)

...

IMHO we need to finished this feature ASAP: https://features.opensuse.org/310109

and we need to find a cool and marketing-able name for (similar to

1-click- install). This would reach way more people (in best case also some non openSUSE users) and we have the chance in the second step to educate them also better about OBS. We will grow afterwards.

This feature just waits for a web developer since a longer time creating

a good proposal. The pure coding part will be realtive minimal, I think.

Awesome idea for sure, and yes, it needs a good marketing name :D

...

Have fun on FOSDEM

Thanks. We'll miss you...

...

adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

Jos, On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Jos Poortvliet wrote:

On Thursday 03 February 2011 10:55:01 Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

One of them (Kurt Garloff) made actually a suggestion some month ago to rename it to "OBS Build Service". This is in the tradition of the Gnu tools and also rpm (RedHat Package Manager -> rpm package manager) is a good example. It also strength the "OBS" term itself IMHO.

I personally like this suggestion and would slightly prefer it to open-build- service (but I have no strong opinion here). But you may want to discuss it on FOSDEM.

Hmmm, it does indeed fit in the Unux tradition. Then again, that tradition is a bit outdated these days - pretty much nobody does use recursive acronyms anymore. But you're right, it's an option.

Well, openSUSE Build Service is currently several things: 1. The software that does the builds 2. The service that we host My proposal was to name #1 OBS = OBS Build Server (with people associating the O with openSUSE or just open being intended). #2 would continue to have the name openSUSE Build Service until the openSUSE project decides otherwise ... Having two distinct names will help to avoid confusion. Having them still similar is good IMVHO. Cheers, -- Kurt Garloff [Private, Koeln] Linux: VP OPS PartnerEng [Novell Inc]

Why not use both names? Then one could use either name depending on the political context. "open-buildservice for historical reasons also called opensuse-buildservice" "opensuse-buildservice for marketing reasons also called open-buildservice" There could be a virtual project so that people trying to install would always do the right thing no matter what named was used. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott@BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117

On 2/4/11 8:29 AM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:

On Thursday 03 February 2011 23:50:27 Paul Elliott wrote:

...

Why not use both names? Then one could use either name depending on the political context.

"open-buildservice for historical reasons also called opensuse-buildservice"

"opensuse-buildservice for marketing reasons also called open-buildservice"

There could be a virtual project so that people trying to install would always do the right thing no matter what named was used.

Hmmm, that would only complicate things. Kurt has a point, as does Bryen - we can call the technology Open Build Service and we have an instance wich is the openSUSE BS. Still I'd call it all the Open Build Service which has an instance free-to-use on build.opensuse.org - to make sure ppl realize that the instance on buid.o.o is ALSO cross-distro! If we point out that the Open Build Service is there 'for all distro's' but still say 'openSUSE build service' when referring to build.o.o we're still having the same issue. After all, while it's fine if ppl run their own instance of OBS, we have the biggest opportunity of turning them into contributors if they're on build.o.o!

So to cut to the chase and avoid further bikeshedding*, let me propose the following:

OBS will from now on officially be known as Open Build Service. build.openSUSE.org is openSUSE's OBS instance.

If any of the core OBS developers have strong objections, please say so. If not, let's say this decision is made - I don't really see why the whole project has to be involved in that decision. It's your build service, the marketing team advices a name change - you decide. Project gets notified. No reason to let another 500 people give their opinion (and bother the other 499 with that). Who codes decides, bottom up, independent teams, all that ;-)

Cheers, Jos

* bikeshed.org

Hi, I am sure this will be a topic to discuss at FOSDEM, unfortunately Adrian will not be there. That said, I agree with Jos that a "rebranding" of you will of OBS is a good thing. I have demoed OBS many times to people and the instant reaction is: " Oh, I thought it was only for openSUSE." Ultimately, its for the OBS developers to decide. I'll shut up now and hope this thread ends. Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 22:20:00 Nelson Marques wrote:

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Jos Poortvliet wrote: <snip> Maybe before we can be attractive to developers we have to be attractive to end users, so that they ditch their distribution repositories and use ours (which isn't supported by any distribution). So for you to succeded this is probably one of the issues that needs to be worked out first... Make OBS a repository of reference to other distributions.

There are such repositories having packages for other distro's, right? Besides, I'm not trying to get users to ditch their distro's repositories and use OBS - that won't work as OBS doesn't have all of their distro. But I want to replace PPA's and specific Fedora repositories with OBS repositories - so we need to get DEVELOPERS and ppl who want to package specific packages for other distro's to use OBS. Then they spread the packages through that. In case of developers, the only thing we win is that they will at least create openSUSE packages so we get more software. In case of 'casual' packagers who for example decide to package F-Spot for a few distro's because they like F-Spot, we have another opportunity: maybe we can convince them to contribute more packages. Then maybe convince them to start contributing those to factory and bang, we have a new contributor. So making it attractive to end users doesn't really help OBS much.

...

The discussions and chats I've had at several conferences including the latest LCA clearly brought that forward and I think those of you who've been at conferences have heard the same sentiments. Now the scope of the Build Service is much wider than that and this misconception is hurting at least some of our uptake. The marketing team is fighting this perception all the time.

From a talk I had with someone I met on OSC, I actually asked him why they didn't used devel snapshots through OBS. The answer I got was... every distribution has packagers, they do that for me, why would I want to waste time on that? I don't package, I do other more important things.

True, for some that is true. Especially if you're KDE or GNOME. Less so if you have a small, lesser-known application - look at gtk-apps.org or kde-apps.org, those apps have usually only a few packages - those for the distro of the developer and a few contributed packages by others. The developer of such an app would surely be interested in OBS so we have to reach them. And those 'others' who submitted a package are a big pool of potential contributors for openSUSE so we need to talk to them even more! And they come for Open Build Service, not openSUSE Build Service!

...

The brand is currently usually abbreviated as OBS - and known (in writing) like that. MeeGo actually calls it 'open build service' already, as do many other people. I wouldn't argue yet that 'open build service' is already the de-facto name, but it's going in that direction.

Once more, this could indicate severe marketing strategy failure. Careful with such statements.

Sure, but the name is wrong hence it goes wrong.

...

So there is a reason to rename it: do something about a misconception which is hurting uptake.

The reason to rebrand and reposition a well established service is based on an hypothetical marketing failure?

No, the failure is the name. We should fix that.

Maybe it's time for you to drop Darwinism and maybe be more mindful of Smith/Drucker/Kotler, as they will provide an answer for your problems.

...

Reasons not to do it: 1 we diminish the link between openSUSE and OBS 2 we loose some brand value due to the repositioning

1 & 2 - will only happen if Marketing doesn't take action to support the whole repositioning (this is where the fat budgets play there role).

As Open Build Service is already used and much easier to promote, I would actually argue that KEEPING the name openSUSE build service is more 'expensive' in terms of effort to promote it.

...

On 1, I don't see this as a real issue as OBS is and will be principally developed by openSUSE - and as I wrote before, the culture of 'credit where credit is due' in FOSS protects us in this regard as well.

Unless you want to make of OBS a fully commercial product, that makes no sense.

...

2 is really minimal - OBS is the name most known and won't change; moreover many people already call it open build service (or even just 'the build service' which is actually really good for us I would say - saying OBS is the de-facto standard build service).

Interesting... A "build service" builds something, that's how someone probably will face it. As I face it, it's an outstanding distribution platform, to feed or distribute contents. There is a difference, and if you think closely, it might be more benefic for OBS to be promoted as a distribution platform, at least it sounds far more appealing to me, and the fact is has a HUGE 'OPENSUSE' in it's name can only benefit openSUSE as a Linux distribution.

Well, I think that benefit is surely there, but it won't be diminished much by the name Open Build Service. People who go there will see openSUSE featured in several places. And they are technical people who surely know who makes the tools they use. So it doesn't change anything for those who use it but does make it easier to get more users... win-win

...

Hence I believe the reason to do it eclipses the reasons not to do it.

Just trying to prevent a situation like the one portraited partially on [1]. If you look carefully, that entry is quite a powerful example. That entry suggests that picking KDE as the default Desktop actually didn't brought the expected user base to openSUSE. And changing back to GNOME will only hurt us more, because you are endangering hurting users and paint us like if we don't know what we're doing. I hope OBS will not be the subject of such changes every once in a while. It kills consumer trust, and we want to build relations with users based on trust so we can build loyalty. Changing all the time will only hurt what we're trying to build.

[1] - https://features.opensuse.org/311023

Change is bad, that's for sure. But as I've said 10 times already, it's not a big change - outside of openSUSE the build service is already often referred to as open build service and we do it too because it makes more sense...

...

On the facebook thing, I doubt our number likes on facebook for openSUSE have much if anything to do with uptake of OBS. Not to say we shouldn't try to increase that number...

Depends... you are only seeing one side of the problem, you neglect still that we work to provide contents to people and to show people that our contents/software is a reliable option. It makes all sense to me that the more contents we serve, the more attractive we will be for those making the contents.

I'm sure that making such a risky maneuvre because a group of people call it something else is rather naive.

You know that's not the reason. And you also should understand by now that it's not risky to do this.

This email expresses a personal opinion and therefore there is no right or wrong, just a point of view.

Sure. And we start to repeat ourselves, so I'll try to refrain from further commenting unless a new argument comes up. Let the OBS dev's decide or let them follow the advice from marketing (which seems to be: rename to Open Build Service).

NM

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Nelson Marques wrote:

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:

...

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 19:50:24 Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:

If people see it that way, maybe it's marketing failure? As you state and I quote:

«hat people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Buil openSUSE Software".»

This only points failure on marketing practices, marketing efforts are failing in passing the message, but in reality, it's not actually far from the reality. OBS plays it's role, it enables all the contents distributed in openSUSE Linux distribution.

Once more, this could indicate severe marketing strategy failure. Careful with such statements.

The reason to rebrand and reposition a well established service is based on an hypothetical marketing failure?

If it's a case of stringent adherence to Marketing principles and theory, then perhaps these principles need to be attended to at a much earlier stage of product development. Because at this stage Marketing is being presented with a fully fledged, named and branded product which we are then, like an advertising company, asked to promote, flaws and all. But really Marketing should be involved at all stages of product development to ensure that we can successfully market the product. At what point did the Marketing team and OBS representatives have a round table and decide on the optimal branding for the build service? Is there an IRC log on that? If any rebranding is EVER going to be done, it needs to be done now, before things go any further, and if not, then we need a clear strategy for ensuring its broader application is more easily promoted (eg, a logo which emphasises BUILD SERVICE). Regarding the suggestion that it's up to the OBS people to decide: they should certainly have some solid input, but as an integral part of the openSUSE project, it is not solely up to them. Who do we have on the team who has qualifications and experience in marketing and advertising? I assume from your comments that you have some formal experience in this area, Nelson? Who else? best, Helen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

At woensdag 02 februari 2011 22:20:00 wrote Nelson Marques:

...

I personally don't see it as a big issue directly - the only issue with it is that people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Build openSUSE Software".

If people see it that way, maybe it's marketing failure? As you state and I quote:

«hat people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Build openSUSE Software".»

I'm sorry to say, but openSUSE is from Novell which is associated with a bad deal with MS. That alone will, I think, be a big barrier to use, download and install openSUSE Build Service. Why would someone using debian, fedora, etc get their packages from download.opensuse.org/repositories/.....??? Would an openSUSE user expect to get his or her software from download.fedorea.org/packages/etc?? or packages.debian.org. I don't think so. It would be much more attractive to get packages from a distribution agnostic site e.g. from buildservice.org/repositories or packages.org/repositories (the former btw redirects already to https://build.opensuse.org/) -- Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

Le 02/02/2011 21:10, Bryen M. Yunashko a écrit :

We're really starting to build up on the fact that "openSUSE" is not a distribution but a Project, and that you can participate and benefit from the Project without even using the distro.

Great!! jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 21:10:55 Bryen M. Yunashko wrote: <snip>

...

This is a proposal that actually has been brought up before in some marketing discussions.  I strongly believe we need to change the name openSUSE Build Service to Open Build Service because from a marketing perspective it is a lot easier to sell OBS.  OBS is a tool that is not limited to openSUSE and thus it should not have a name that limits public perception in that way.   Open Build Service (powered by the openSUSE Project) has a better chance at larger adoption.

Those of us who discussed it decided to hold off a few months at the time because we didn't want to rock the boat and there were other things happening.  But now I believe the momentum is right for the name change. We're really starting to build up on the fact that "openSUSE" is not a distribution but a Project, and that you can participate and benefit from the Project without even using the distro.  This is what we're really here for, to create a community that can collaborate across borders and provide services that do not limit you to the use of the distribution itself.

Yup! At the conference I got several people interested in OBS by stating that very clearly: "I don't care if you use Fedora or Ubuntu, OBS is interesting for you because it builds packages for all distro's!" "oh, really, does it? It's not just for openSUSE?" "No, OBS is cross-distribution. MeeGo uses it, so does VLC to build packages for all distro's"

== a small technical glitch If you really want OBS to attract cross platform developers of small packages, you need to allow a package to have more control of its build targets. I'll use my trivial open2300 package as an example again. In my home project, I control the repos, so I can build for any of the supported targets. But I submitted it to the Hardware devel project a couple months ago. That project only builds for openSUSE and SLE. As far as I know, there is nothing I can do about that. So non-openSUSE users that might come looking for it at OBS have to search home directories if they want to find it. I was actually pretty disappointed to realize that, and it made OBS feel much less open to me. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 21:21:59 Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 14:46 +1100, Helen wrote:

...

On a related note, I was under the impression that Bretzn was being renamed to 'AppInstaller' though perhaps I've got the "wrong end of the stick" as the saying goes.

Maybe we should come up with something that conforms with our "open" identity? Something like openApp or openInstaller or something? I dunno, "installer" sounds a bit intimidating to some people, but open-something might be the way to go.

Well, the name of the application for installation is "openSUSE Application Installer", see: http://news.opensuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/appstore_details.png The product you might call 'bretzn' is the plugin for IDE's which ties the Build Service(s) to application store(s), websites and repositories. And the name of the whole project developing it is Bretzn. But it's still vague because - is Bretzn a KDE project? or is it an openSUSE project? The ppl who started it are KDE and openSUSE people. But they want it to be cross- desktop and cross-distribution as well as based on open standards (eg libattica, OCS). So the bretzn branding is surely unclear in general. I've copied in Karlitschek who started this whole thing, and vuntz who's been busy on the cross-distro side (and might get involved with the GNOME application installer on openSUSE). I've recently asked Frank to move the Bretzn mailinglist to freedesktop.org - a cross-desktop, cross-distro project with a mailinglist named "kde- bretzn@kde.org" doesn't make much sense. Still, unless people from other distros and desktops actually get involved, it's not much of a cross-project. I think we should get the people who are working on this stuff for KDE, GNOME and all distro's together on that one new mailinglist... Meanwhile, we do indeed need to think about the name. How big is the scope of Bretzn, and IF we decide it's fully cross desktop/distro, is Bretzn the right name? It has indeed disadvantages, being hard to spell and pronounce for non- Germans...

Just thinking out loud here.

Bryen

...

Meanwhile, we do indeed need to think about the name. How big is the scope of Bretzn, and IF we decide it's fully cross desktop/distro, is Bretzn the right name? It has indeed disadvantages, being hard to spell and pronounce for non- Germans...

Well. "Project Bretzn" is the codename for the idea to simplify the process of bringing applications from the developers to the enduser. Part of it is the plugin for IDEs and another part is the AppStore. But the word "Bretzn" was always considered a joke. So we shouldn´t put the term "Bretzn" into the actual user interface. It´s just an internal codeword.

But it´s of course possible to mention Bretzn if someone want´s to describe the idea and the initiative. But "Bretzn" should never appear in the openSUSE menu.  ;-)

Cheers Frank

The name DOES seem to be sticking! So if you want to change it, it will need to be quite soon! http://www.meegoexperts.com/2011/02/project-bretzn/ cheers, Helen

...

...

Just thinking out loud here.

Bryen

-- Frank Karlitschek karlitschek@kde.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 04:57:40 AM Frank Karlitschek wrote:

On 03.02.2011, at 10:19, Helen wrote:

...

...

...

Meanwhile, we do indeed need to think about the name. How big is the scope of Bretzn, and IF we decide it's fully cross desktop/distro, is Bretzn the right name? It has indeed disadvantages, being hard to spell and pronounce for non- Germans...

Well. "Project Bretzn" is the codename for the idea to simplify the process of bringing applications from the developers to the enduser. Part of it is the plugin for IDEs and another part is the AppStore. But the word "Bretzn" was always considered a joke. So we shouldn´t put the term "Bretzn" into the actual user interface. It´s just an internal codeword.

But it´s of course possible to mention Bretzn if someone want´s to describe the idea and the initiative. But "Bretzn" should never appear in the openSUSE menu. ;-)

Cheers Frank

The name DOES seem to be sticking! So if you want to change it, it will need to be quite soon! http://www.meegoexperts.com/2011/02/project-bretzn/

cheers,

Helen

I think it´s fine if someone refers to Bretzn as a project or idea.

But I don´t think the enduser should start "Bretzn" to install software. :-)

Cheers Frank

...

...

...

...

Just thinking out loud here.

Bryen

-- Frank Karlitschek karlitschek@kde.org

-- Frank Karlitschek karlitschek@kde.org

Bretzen sounds like a codename but not make reference to what it does or what is for. Since users or newcomers point of view Bretzn has no hook to take their attention at least by itself. So it needs some feature-functionality name associated to expose it. And at the beginning we have to make reference to both names because Bretzn is already known too in some knowledge circles. So to expand or reach beyond these insider people circles need something like "Bretzn-AppsCab" or maybe shorten. I was playing with "Bretzn-AppsIns" , "Bretzn-Apps" , or like tradename "iBretzn" or "instaBretzn" Still playing with the concepts. Regards, -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador Panama Testing version 11.4 Milestone 6, KDE 4.6.00, Mesa-Nouveau 3D -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

Maybe name OBS as BSOS meaning Building Service for Operating System(s) but we also can have it as Building Service of (for) open SUSE or Building Service Open Source.

One acronym with many meanings... Open Build Service - as Jos said before is the best name of choice, I think. Or we call it Linux Build Service (LBS), but some people will think

Am 03.02.2011 16:17, schrieb Stathis Iosifidis (aka diamond_gr): then, it´s something like LSB. kind regards & a nice day kdl -- Kim Leyendecker (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) openSUSE Ambassador powered by openSUSE 11.3 KDE Kernel-desktop 2.6.34-12& using Tumbleweed This mail was composed under Linux Have you tried SUSE Studio? Need to create a Live CD, an app you want to package and distribute , or create your own linux distro. Give SUSE Studio a try. www.susestudio.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:19:24 AM Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 16:37 +0100, Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

Am 03.02.2011 16:17, schrieb Stathis Iosifidis (aka diamond_gr):

...

Maybe name OBS as BSOS meaning Building Service for Operating System(s) but we also can have it as Building Service of (for) open SUSE or Building Service Open Source.

One acronym with many meanings...

Open Build Service - as Jos said before is the best name of choice, I think. Or we call it Linux Build Service (LBS), but some people will think then, it´s something like LSB.

kind regards & a nice day kdl

If I'm not mistaken (and it wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken) OBS also packages for Windows. Thus Linux Build Service wouldn't work. Open is still the best.

Bryen

About OBS, oBS, openSUSE Build Services, open Build Services, I am not feeling any good changing the name at this right moment. The service was launched and other people put the name as the felt it is better for them. And that's not good either. But it is done. They are going to use it when it serves their goals and maybe without giving a credit . What I think we must make clear inside that tool (oBS) is putting somewhere inside in a visible mode the openSUSE Sponsored logo or Novell Sponsored logo. Regards, -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador Panama Testing version 11.4 Milestone 6, KDE 4.6.00, Mesa-Nouveau 3D -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 19:04 -0600, Rajko M. wrote:

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:19:24 am Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

...

If I'm not mistaken (and it wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken) OBS also packages for Windows. Thus Linux Build Service wouldn't work. Open is still the best.

As mentioned before we can use only "OBS" and as explanation of acronym, it stood for openSUSE Build Service. The same thing that happened with S.u.S.E. conversion to SUSE, from Software und System Entwicklung to SUSE. Previous name has only historic value.

"OBS a build service", for instance sounds good too me. Not as a recursive name, but more like "SUSE a Novell company".

-- Regards, Rajko

Ok so we've heard some good vigorous discussions of pros and cons from both sides of the aisle and this is a good discussion. Even if nothing comes of it, it still gave us a chance to exercise that muscle up in our noggin about thinking marketing. But I think at this point we've pretty much exhausted both sides arguments. So, in order to not turn this discussion into an endless thread and try to summarize and figure out where to go from here, I see the following: 1. The choice is between "Open Build Service" and "openSUSE Build Service" and leaving it at OBS and allowing people to spell it out however they choose. 2. Do we recommend, as a marketing team, to propose either of the options as listed in #1. Remember, we're just a segment of the overall project and thus whatever we vote on is a recommendation and not a binding change across the project. We can only vote on a consensus of the above options and then recommend it to the OBS team and Project. Seems that we should be picking which name we want to use and move from here. We have a lot of activities coming up where we can promote OBS and the sooner we can come to a consensus and develop our marketing strategies based on that consensus, the better. So... let's vote: A. We recommend formally changing the name to ""Open Build Service" B. We recommend formally changing the name to OBS and allowing people to use "openSUSE Build Service" or "open Build Service" as they see fit. C. Leave it as is - openSUSE Build Service I'm entering my vote now for A. Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Marketing Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

I vote A, Open Build Service (but only by a small factor over C.) I VIGOROUSLY oppose B on the grounds of ambiguity creating confusion. regards, Helen On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 19:04 -0600, Rajko M. wrote:

...

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:19:24 am Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

...

If I'm not mistaken (and it wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken) OBS also packages for Windows.  Thus Linux Build Service wouldn't work.   Open is still the best.

As mentioned before we can use only "OBS" and as explanation of acronym, it stood for openSUSE Build Service. The same thing that happened with S.u.S.E. conversion to SUSE, from Software und System Entwicklung to SUSE. Previous name has only historic value.

"OBS a build service", for instance sounds good too me. Not as a recursive name, but more like "SUSE a Novell company".

-- Regards, Rajko

Ok so we've heard some good vigorous discussions of pros and cons from both sides of the aisle and this is a good discussion.  Even if nothing comes of it, it still gave us a chance to exercise that muscle up in our noggin about thinking marketing.   But I think at this point we've pretty much exhausted both sides arguments.

So, in order to not turn this discussion into an endless thread and try to summarize and figure out where to go from here, I see the following:

1.  The choice is between "Open Build Service" and "openSUSE Build Service" and leaving it at OBS and allowing people to spell it out however they choose.

2.  Do we recommend, as a marketing team, to propose either of the options as listed in #1.  Remember, we're just a segment of the overall project and thus whatever we vote on is a recommendation and not a binding change across the project.  We can only vote on a consensus of the above options and then recommend it to the OBS team and Project.

Seems that we should be picking which name we want to use and move from here.  We have a lot of activities coming up where we can promote OBS and the sooner we can come to a consensus and develop our marketing strategies based on that consensus, the better.

So... let's vote:

A.  We recommend formally changing the name to ""Open Build Service"

B.  We recommend formally changing the name to OBS and allowing people to use "openSUSE Build Service" or "open Build Service" as they see fit.

C.  Leave it as is - openSUSE Build Service

I'm entering my vote now for A.

Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Marketing Team

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 13:31 +0900, Satoru Matsumoto wrote:

Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

...

A. We recommend formally changing the name to ""Open Build Service"

B. We recommend formally changing the name to OBS and allowing people to use "openSUSE Build Service" or "open Build Service" as they see fit.

C. Leave it as is - openSUSE Build Service

I vote for B.

Since the words 'openSUSE Build Service' are already all over the *.opensuse.org sites, we have to replace *ALL* of them with 'Open Build Service' if we change the name.

So, I'd like to ask you, who will vote for A: Are you willing to replace the words 'openSUSE Build Service' which are already on whole *.opensuse.org sites with 'Open Build Service' responsibly?

If the answer is 'No, someone except me should do.', I'm sorry to say you are an irresponsible person. Only if the answer is 'Yes, I'll volunteer to do so.', the option A would be a compelling opinion.

Best,

-- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/

That's a valid concern. And I just poked someone in the wiki team to ask how difficult this challenge would be. From a technical standpoint, it's not that difficult to install an extension from mediawiki to do mass edits. At the very least, we could produce a list of all pages that have that string and a group of us volunteer to go through pages one-by-one to clean it up. Obviously this only applies to pages where the full "openSUSE Build Service" string exists. Those where OBS is only used, no need to worry. So... I'm volunteering to jump on on the cleanup effort if that's what is eventually decided upon. I remind you all that again, we are only voting on a recommendation to give to the OBS team. We're not actually making a decision here. Thanks, Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

Am Donnerstag, 10. Februar 2011, 10:18:32 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:

On 2011-02-04 Bryen wrote:

...

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 13:31 +0900, Satoru Matsumoto wrote:

...

Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

...

A. We recommend formally changing the name to ""Open Build Service"

B. We recommend formally changing the name to OBS and allowing people to use "openSUSE Build Service" or "open Build Service" as they see fit.

C. Leave it as is - openSUSE Build Service

I vote for B.

Since the words 'openSUSE Build Service' are already all over the *.opensuse.org sites, we have to replace *ALL* of them with 'Open Build Service' if we change the name.

So, I'd like to ask you, who will vote for A: Are you willing to replace the words 'openSUSE Build Service' which are already on whole *.opensuse.org sites with 'Open Build Service' responsibly?

If the answer is 'No, someone except me should do.', I'm sorry to say you are an irresponsible person. Only if the answer is 'Yes, I'll volunteer to do so.', the option A would be a compelling opinion.

Best,

That's a valid concern. And I just poked someone in the wiki team to ask how difficult this challenge would be. From a technical standpoint, it's not that difficult to install an extension from mediawiki to do mass edits. At the very least, we could produce a list of all pages that have that string and a group of us volunteer to go through pages one-by-one to clean it up. Obviously this only applies to pages where the full "openSUSE Build Service" string exists. Those where OBS is only used, no need to worry.

So... I'm volunteering to jump on on the cleanup effort if that's what is eventually decided upon.

I remind you all that again, we are only voting on a recommendation to give to the OBS team. We're not actually making a decision here.

Thanks, Bryen

Assuming everyone who didn't reply doesn't have a strong opinion or isn't that interested, the conclusion is that we go for option A: Open Build Service. Bryen has offered to make sure it all looks good in the wiki and other pages.

So, Bryen or Helen - which one of you communicates this to the OBS people, tell them the marketing team recommends a name change to Open Build Service and will take care of the renaming work on the websites?

Hello ? OBS is not owned by you people. You can of course also decide to rename the Linux Kernel, but this is not the way to make this happen. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 13:29 +0100, Adrian Schröter wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 10. Februar 2011, 10:18:32 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:

...

On 2011-02-04 Bryen wrote:

...

...

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 13:31 +0900, Satoru Matsumoto wrote:

...

...

...

Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

...

...

...

...

A. We recommend formally changing the name to ""Open Build

...

...

...

...

Service"

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

B. We recommend formally changing the name to OBS and allowing

...

...

...

...

people to use "openSUSE Build Service" or "open Build Service"

...

...

...

...

as they see fit.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

C. Leave it as is - openSUSE Build Service

...

...

...

...

...

...

I vote for B.

...

...

...

...

...

...

Since the words 'openSUSE Build Service' are already all over the

...

...

...

*.opensuse.org sites, we have to replace *ALL* of them with 'Open

...

...

...

Build

...

...

...

Service' if we change the name.

...

...

...

...

...

...

So, I'd like to ask you, who will vote for A: Are you willing to

...

...

...

replace the words 'openSUSE Build Service' which are already on

...

...

...

whole

...

...

...

*.opensuse.org sites with 'Open Build Service' responsibly?

...

...

...

...

...

...

If the answer is 'No, someone except me should do.', I'm sorry to

...

...

...

say

...

...

...

you are an irresponsible person. Only if the answer is 'Yes, I'll

...

...

...

volunteer to do so.', the option A would be a compelling opinion.

...

...

...

...

...

...

Best,

...

...

...

...

That's a valid concern. And I just poked someone in the wiki team to

...

...

ask how difficult this challenge would be. From a technical standpoint,

...

...

it's not that difficult to install an extension from mediawiki to do

...

...

mass edits. At the very least, we could produce a list of all pages

...

...

that have that string and a group of us volunteer to go through pages

...

...

one-by-one to clean it up. Obviously this only applies to pages where

...

...

the full "openSUSE Build Service" string exists. Those where OBS is

...

...

only used, no need to worry.

...

...

...

...

So... I'm volunteering to jump on on the cleanup effort if that's what

...

...

is eventually decided upon.

...

...

...

...

I remind you all that again, we are only voting on a recommendation to

...

...

give to the OBS team. We're not actually making a decision here.

...

...

...

...

Thanks,

...

...

Bryen

...

...

Assuming everyone who didn't reply doesn't have a strong opinion or isn't

...

that interested, the conclusion is that we go for option A: Open Build

...

Service. Bryen has offered to make sure it all looks good in the wiki and

...

other pages.

...

...

So, Bryen or Helen - which one of you communicates this to the OBS people,

...

tell them the marketing team recommends a name change to Open Build Service

...

and will take care of the renaming work on the websites?

Hello ?

OBS is not owned by you people.

You can of course also decide to rename the Linux Kernel, but this is not the way to make this happen.

--

Adrian Schroeter

SUSE Linux Products GmbH

email: adrian@suse.de

Adrian, I think something got lost in this thread. When I redirected this thread to put an ned to the endless discussion, I clearly stated that we can only vote to recommend and that we cannot decide for the OBS team. You and I are on the same page. "We people" don't get to decide for you. We can only recommend and I think that is an important role for the marketing team to express its concerns about any obstacles it has when it attempts to market products under the openSUSE Project umbrella, including OBS. We consider OBS an important product to market to the masses and we do have some concerns, as stated in this thread, about how "openSUSE Build Service" as a name does not convey the true reach of the product. We're all partners here and should feel comfortable about conveying our concerns in an objective way. Shortly, Helen and I will formulate a formal recommendation statement and we hope the OBS Team will review the recommendation objectively. However, we recognize that the OBS Team is free to accept, reject, or even ignore the recommendation outright. Thanks, Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 15:41 +0100, Adrian Schröter wrote:

The point is, also the OBS developer team is not free to decide (I hope this became clear in earlier mails). OBS is a SUSE/Novell product in first place, used also by openSUSE.

I am also personal interessted in a name change, but I can't decide this on my own as well. It would be good in any case if would not start on changing the web pages like suggested in the mail before.

-- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de

Then there is some serious confusion here. We have always been told that OBS was a part of the openSUSE Project. And the name openSUSE Build Service lends to that belief that it is under the openSUSE umbrella, rather than being called the SUSE Build Service. If that is not the case, then we have been seriously misled here for a very long time. So now... I'm concerned that we've been told this is an openSUSE project, we've been marketing it as such, we've been actively talking to the FOSS community as such and it turns out it doesn't belong to us. By comparison, the SUSE Studio product has always been clearly stated as not being part of the openSUSE Project umbrella and we acted accordingly recognizing the marketing efforts to be a partnership, not a domain of openSUSE. So, I'm at a loss now with this sudden change of what's been said to us for at least the past year repeatedly being wrong. Maybe we need to pull back on marketing until we can get further clarification that this is indeed true and if so, why we were misled for the past year. Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 16:28 +0100, Adrian Schröter wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 10. Februar 2011, 08:53:59 schrieb Bryen M. Yunashko:

...

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 15:41 +0100, Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

The point is, also the OBS developer team is not free to decide (I hope this became clear in earlier mails). OBS is a SUSE/Novell product in first place, used also by openSUSE.

I am also personal interessted in a name change, but I can't decide this on my own as well. It would be good in any case if would not start on changing the web pages like suggested in the mail before.

Then there is some serious confusion here. We have always been told that OBS was a part of the openSUSE Project. And the name openSUSE Build Service lends to that belief that it is under the openSUSE umbrella, rather than being called the SUSE Build Service. If that is not the case, then we have been seriously misled here for a very long time.

It is developed under the openSUSE umbrella as part of the project. It is 100% open source (GPL). But talking about names is a different thing. Currently, OBS like the openSUSE name is owned by SUSE/Novell, the company. Yes, I know, we want to move the openSUSE name ownership to the foundation, but this is currently not yet the case.

...

So now... I'm concerned that we've been told this is an openSUSE project, we've been marketing it as such, we've been actively talking to the FOSS community as such and it turns out it doesn't belong to us.

It does not belong to you like also YaST, X11 or the Linux kernel does not belong to you (just to name some examples). It is GPL, you can do what you want according to the license terms, but that does not mean that you can re- organize how it is developed or it's naming in the upstream project.

...

By comparison, the SUSE Studio product has always been clearly stated as not being part of the openSUSE Project umbrella and we acted accordingly recognizing the marketing efforts to be a partnership, not a domain of openSUSE.

So, I'm at a loss now with this sudden change of what's been said to us for at least the past year repeatedly being wrong. Maybe we need to pull back on marketing until we can get further clarification that this is indeed true and if so, why we were misled for the past year.

There is no sudden change.

And we agreed here that opensuse marketing can not decide on it's own about the name. The OBS developers can't do that either, because they are (almost only) Novell employees, so we need to feed this into our company decision process.

But we did exactly this already, because we also want to rename it.

If we just could agree that we should not rename web pages already we have no disagreement, I think.

So... in the end, we just went on a little side-trip to realize we're pretty much on the same page after all. :-) Really, at this junction, whether we make the recommendation to the OBS team or to some higher-up isn't relevant. Its whether we can actually make our formal recommendation statement. And I see no reason why we cannot do that to whomever is next up in the chain that is able to make decisions. Could you forward us that contact information? (You can send it to me privately if you prefer it not be published on the ML.) So, let's go ahead and still make our formal recommendation statement. Adrian, you actually gave one good point above that should be incorporated into the statement. You mention that most OBS devs are Novellians. This is a further reason why we should change the name in order to attract more developers that are not Novell-employed. I think that should speak volumes in our statement. Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

If it helps to unruffle some feathers, maybe Open (normal voice) SUSE (whisper) Build Service (normal voice) and maybe like so many other products maybe adding as an optional byline... Powered by OpenSUSE :) Tony On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 16:28 +0100, Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

Am Donnerstag, 10. Februar 2011, 08:53:59 schrieb Bryen M. Yunashko:

...

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 15:41 +0100, Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

The point is, also the OBS developer team is not free to decide (I hope this became clear in earlier mails). OBS is a SUSE/Novell product in first place, used also by openSUSE.

I am also personal interessted in a name change, but I can't decide this on my own as well. It would be good in any case if would not start on changing the web pages like suggested in the mail before.

Then there is some serious confusion here.   We have always been told that OBS was a part of the openSUSE Project.  And the name openSUSE Build Service lends to that belief that it is under the openSUSE umbrella, rather than being called the SUSE Build Service.   If that is not the case, then we have been seriously misled here for a very long time.

It is developed under the openSUSE umbrella as part of the project. It is 100% open source (GPL). But talking about names is a different thing. Currently, OBS like the openSUSE name is owned by SUSE/Novell, the company. Yes, I know, we want to move the openSUSE name ownership to the foundation, but this is currently not yet the case.

...

So now...  I'm concerned that we've been told this is an openSUSE project, we've been marketing it as such, we've been actively talking to the FOSS community as such and it turns out it doesn't belong to us.

It does not belong to you like also YaST, X11 or the Linux kernel does not belong to you (just to name some examples). It is GPL, you can do what you want according to the license terms, but that does not mean that you can re- organize how it is developed or it's naming in the upstream project.

...

By comparison, the SUSE Studio product has always been clearly stated as not being part of the openSUSE Project umbrella and we acted accordingly recognizing the marketing efforts to be a partnership, not a domain of openSUSE.

So, I'm at a loss now with this sudden change of what's been said to us for at least the past year repeatedly being wrong.  Maybe we need to pull back on marketing until we can get further clarification that this is indeed true and if so, why we were misled for the past year.

There is no sudden change.

And we agreed here that opensuse marketing can not decide on it's own about the name. The OBS developers can't do that either, because they are (almost only) Novell employees, so we need to feed this into our company decision process.

But we did exactly this already, because we also want to rename it.

If we just could agree that we should not rename web pages already we have no disagreement, I think.

So... in the end, we just went on a little side-trip to realize we're pretty much on the same page after all.  :-)

Really, at this junction, whether we make the recommendation to the OBS team or to some higher-up isn't relevant.  Its whether we can actually make our formal recommendation statement.  And I see no reason why we cannot do that to whomever is next up in the chain that is able to make decisions.   Could you forward us that contact information?  (You can send it to me privately if you prefer it not be published on the ML.)

So, let's go ahead and still make our formal recommendation statement. Adrian, you actually gave one good point above that should be incorporated into the statement.   You mention that most OBS devs are Novellians.  This is a further reason why we should change the name in order to attract more developers that are not Novell-employed.  I think that should speak volumes in our statement.

Bryen

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+help@opensuse.org