On 10/2/19 7:37 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed 2019-10-02, Michal Kubecek wrote:
Personally, I can see more similarities [with the
Brexit vote] than
I feel comfortable with.
When the topic came up on my first board meeting (in August), the Brexit
voting process is an example I used as something to not repeat, indeed.
I, too, feel a bit uncomfortable, and I, too, hope that the vote will
be "no change of name". I see your point, and Henne's, and at least as
importantly the value of an existing brand. To me the potential benefits
of changing thename appear moderate in comparison, if not speculative.
But let's see.
Of course, there is another difference: if it all
comes to the worst and
the result of the vote is "change", Board could simply make a popularity
contest and choose the name with most votes even if majority of voters
(and users) would in fact dislike that name. But that is hardly
If it comes to that, constructing the ballot is going to be non-trivial
and hugely important.
Yes, especially since we continue to co-mingle different tangentially
We continue to mix foundation name, project name, and "product name"
where "product name" is probably the least defined up in the same
There is no objective data that shows that
foundation_name not in [ project_name, product_name ]
is really bad for collecting money from sponsors. And collecting money
from sponsors is what the foundation is supposed to be about, if I
remember the discussion around this in the oSC YouTube video correctly.
The bottom line appears to me to provide a legal entity so we can get
money from sponsors and the money does not have to traverse through the
SUSE accounting system.
While the use of "openSUSE Project" has trademark implications, as such
we have been able to use the name for a long time and while IANAL I
would haphazard the guess that SUSE has long lost the opportunity to
strip the openSUSE name in this respect as to lack of prior enforcement.
If we define our products to be the distributions then we have "openSUSE
Leap" and "openSUSE Tumbleweed". In this case the life span of these
names is relatively short, thus if "the lack of enforcement" would apply
to he product and SUSE could force the re-naming of these products is a
question others will have to answer.
This is even farther removed w.r.t. the naming question and revolves
around trademark use approval and the work the board has w.r.t. this
topic. This is where the trademark ownership topic comes into play most
prominently. This is also all about marketing and being known. Which is
where the project has traditionally lacked the most w.r.t. people
Each of these topics is quite complex with potential implications on the
others. None of the the topics, probably with the exception of the
trademark ownership, have been discussed in a focused discussion with
more or less objective weighing of the pros and cons. And now for some
reason there appears to be the believe that we can cast these complex
topics into a single yes/no ballot question. Sorry, IMHO that does not
do the complexity of the topic justice nor should we, IMHO, expect any
tangible useful information out of that vote.
Or stated in another way, having one yes/no vote that intermingles these
complex topics is insane.
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
Distinguished Architect LINUX
Technical Team Lead Public Cloud
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org