On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Robert Schweikert
And your statement is not consistent with statements made in the open Board meeting at Osc and not consistent with what was stated by Richard, let me repeat:
""" The primary motivator for the Foundation is to better handle financial transactions and to attract sponsors - period. """
I am not implying that related topics should be ignored, but we should give them proper weight.
The discussion in this thread mostly focuses around control of the mark and why that may or more may not be important.
Based on that it appears to me that the first question we need to answer for ourselves is if it is important to control the mark, and how important it is?
And that is being discussed with arguments on either side of the topic.
The rest follows from there. The original question, paraphrased, "change the name or not?" becomes superfluous once we agree, possibly vote on, whether complete control of the mark is something that we want or not.
But again it all flows from the answer to the question, what is the driving factor, or more broadly formulated, what are the driving factors? And then the follow on question, what is the relative importance of the various factors.
Based on the discussion it would appear that topics around the mark are more important than handling the finances. Otherwise one would think we'd talk about how it would work to open accounts, where they would be located, if there would be membership dues, if we get hardware where that would be located etc. Basically things around financial and sponsorship topics. None of those topics are going to be straight forward. Yet the majority of the messages are around the mark.
And here is the crux, two different answers to the same question. One person proclaiming the main factor is financial and another proclaiming that risks associated with not owning the mark are the driving factors.
And yes certainly we can in some way construct a way in which owning the mark is connected to money.
This thread isn't the "lets sort out all the topics around the Foundation" thread. The Board have made their decision regarding the Foundation, it's going to happen, and sure, you list above a whole bunch of subsequent decisions that need to be discussed and then made. This thread is titled "Project name and logo discussion" and was started by Stasiek to discuss one of those related topics. It's one close to his heart, as the most active contributor to all of our branding across the Project. I respect that, and it makes sense to me that this is one of the hotter topics to some members in our community even if it was 'out of scope' of the Boards motivation for deciding to go towards a Foundation. Therefore, all of my replies on this thread have kept to the topic of the thread. When discussing this in the context of the Foundation, sure I've heavily focused only the aspects of the Foundation discussion that are relevant to this threads topic of "Name and Logo" - the Trademark..because, well, I think it should be obvious, the Trademark is the primary, if not only, part of the Foundation discussion that is remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. There is only a crux, conflict, or confusion if you conflate the topic of this thread with all the other aspects of the Foundation discussion we're going to need to discuss eventually. But I'd say it would be hell of a lot better for everyone if we actually kept this thread on topic and just addressed the Name/Logo topic here and now. It's not that relevant to the primary goals of the Foundation. But it is highly influential to the scoping aspects of the Foundation, and there is nothing more critical for any community than being certain about it's own identity. So if we address the name/logo topic first, it puts us on a good footing to address the other aspects. We can't do everything at once, and this represents a relatively 'low hanging fruit' of the bunch. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org