[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] Using the FOSS4G brand

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

Dear Arnulf and All,

I think this discussion has been done several times
before in discuss e,g. [1] and board lists (someone will
have to search the thread).
History of FOSS4G is documented at [2] and [3]

FOSS4G refers a philosophy/concept/technology and
cannot be branded. Since it existed before the
formation of OSGeo foundation, OSGeo foundation
cannot/need not claim ownership to FOSS4G.

Hoping see more FOSS4G in the bazaar.

Best

Venka

[1]http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2011-November/009759.html
[2]http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G
[3]http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2011-November/009762.html

On 2013/11/21 1:32, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I think this discussion has been done before
> in discuss [1] and board lists.
> History of FOSS4G is documented at [2] and [3]
>
> FOSS4G refers a philosophy/concept/technology and
> cannot be branded. Since it existed before the
> formation of OSGeo foundation, OSGeo foundation
> cannot/need not claim ownership to FOSS4G.
>
> Hoping see more FOSS4G in the bazaar.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> [1]http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2011-November/009759.html
> [2]http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G
> [3]http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2011-November/009762.html
>
>
> On 2013/11/20 18:47, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Folks,
>> there has been some confusion around the brand FOSS4G, how to organize
>> local conferences in general, how to link back to OSGeo and so on.
>>
>> As a result of these ongoings I suggest that OSGeo take more ownership
>> of the brand FOSS4G. The main reason is to avoid confusion, improve
>> transparency and make sure that the name FOSS4G continues to stand for
>> quality events.
>>
>> Therefore I suggest that anybody who wants to use the name FOSS4G has to
>> first ask/announce this on this mailing list *before* making it a public
>> event, sign any contracts, etc.
>>
>> What is "ask/announce"? Not sure, we may need to better define. From a
>> do-ocratic [1] point of view anybody should be allowed to go ahead. At
>> the same time we should strive to avoid conflicts with other events
>> close by, go easy on volunteer resources, etc. Maybe we can implement a
>> very simple rule: If nobody complains / raises issues within two weeks
>> of announcing on the Conference-dev list the organizer can go ahead.
>>
>> Later we may also want to make sure (make it a rule) that a trusted
>> OSGeo person is part of the LOC.
>>
>> What is a "trusted OSGeo person"? Anybody with an official role, be it
>> board, committee, or chair. If necessary we have to clarify. Again, I'd
>> like to keep it simple...
>>
>> Once we have talked about this here and if we agree I would like to make
>> this a motion to be approved by the Board at one of their next meetings.
>>
>> A general question is whether the conference committee is prepared to
>> take on this additional job at all. It appears to be the best place but
>> if you think this belongs elsewhere please advise.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arnulf
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Do-ocracy
>>
>> - --
>> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
>> http://arnulf.us
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAlKMhTEACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2hPQCfWpQq7H074+6k5Fc7TcWDcPeA
>> xnYAn34JXZKvvI8nnWUGbLi5udta7TPq
>> =kPfa
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>