[Marketing] Re: [Live-demo] Re: What is OSGeoLive's relationship with OSGeo?

[Jody Garnett]

I do see the alignment with the marketing committee; and currently the
project overviews for the dvd are more current than the website.

Yep; I could go for that.

One idea I keep trying to put out there; and perhaps is meeting
resistance. Is styling the documentation pages differently for the
actual osgeo projects in order to make it clear what projects the
foundation endorses.

The other point of view is the that the foundation has a mandate to
promote open source spatial (irregardless of what umbrella the project
is under). And the contents of the dvd are an excellent reflection of
these goals.

Jody

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com> wrote:
> I agree, I've always seen it as a sub-part of the Marketing committee. I
> think what we have to be clear about is that including software does not
> constitute and endorsement by the Foundation. So we can still be of the
> Foundation, and at the same time the disc does not represent nor is it
> warrantied by OSGeo for any particular use/purpose.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
> On 08/31/2010 07:15 PM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
>> I've always saw it as just a committee run project, similar to the Journal,
>> Edu committee and the geodata group.  I think there is limited benefit to
>> incubation or even labs.  If it's simply a committee run project then no big
>> deal.  But if it's not under OSGeo's umbrella at all, then we can restart the
>> discussions about branding it with an OSGeo based logo ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> On August 31, 2010 05:58:19 pm Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> I was hoping the project would enter OSGeo Labs and or incubation
>>> process; but perhaps that is just me.
>>>
>>> The foundation and the osgeolive project have similar goals (promotion
>>> of open source spatial) but different means (packaging and
>>> distribution vs sheltering foundation).
>>>
>>> Jody
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Astrid Emde <astrid_emde at osgeo.org> wrote:
>>>> Hello Cameron,
>>>>
>>>> you discussed this also on the marketing list. Tyler made a suggestion
>>>> for the documentation. You find it in the following mail:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/marketing/2010-August/002496.html
>>>>
>>>> I would highly prefer the text of Tyler.
>>>>
>>>> I personaly was not aware that the OSGeoLiveDVD doesn't represent the
>>>> OSGeo Foundation and is a separate project. For me OSGeoLiveDVD is OSGeo
>>>> and more. Maybe we can get OSGeo and OSGeoLive more connected in future
>>>> as for me the separation does not make sense.
>>>>
>>>> Astrid
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, August 30, 2010 11:22 pm, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>> Tyler highlights the issue that our OSGeoLive web pages don't clearly
>>>>> distinguish between OSGeoLive and the OSGeo Foundation.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is probably partly due to the fact that I don't think we have
>>>>> clearly defined the relationship ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we include something like the following in our documentation:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "While OSGeoLive shares the same ideals, is run by the same volunteer,s
>>>>> and creates marketing material on behalf, of the OSGeo Foundation, it is
>>>>> a separate project and doesn't represent the OSGeo Foundation."
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31/08/10 04:58, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-08-29 8:41 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>> Tyler,
>>>>>>> Someone has brought it to my attention that the OSGeoLive project [1]
>>>>>>> is breaking OSGeo Acceptable Logo Usage requirements [2] by modifying
>>>>>>> the logo (with a blue heart, and words "Live").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I remember seeing similar discussion of modified use of the logo for
>>>>>>> local chapters, and for a consensus that it should be encouraged, but
>>>>>>> it seems this feeling has not made it into official documentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please confirm that it is ok us to use the OSGeoLive logo as
>>>>>>> per [1]. Could you please let us know whether there is any process in
>>>>>>> place to update [2].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://live.osgeo.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/export/2914/marketing/guidelines/v2/brandi
>>>>>>> ng_guide.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for mentioning it Cameron.  The main thing we are trying to
>>>>>> avoid is brand confusion.  For example, if a local chapter remixes the
>>>>>> OSGeo logo in some way, it needs to be clear that they are not "OSGeo"
>>>>>> proper nor representing OSGeo officially in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise with the Live project.  It hasn't modified the logo any more
>>>>>> than local chapters have, but it could be a bit clearer how the project
>>>>>> relates back to OSGeo.  Obviously if it's got an osgeo.org address, it
>>>>>> ties back directly, but I'm thinking about those people who will be
>>>>>> introduced to "OSGeo Live" without going through any OSGeo related
>>>>>> website.  A note on the Live website about how it relates to the OSGeo
>>>>>> organisation and software would be valuable for several reasons, but in
>>>>>> this context it's important so people see can understand the difference
>>>>>> between "OSGeo" and "OSGeo Live".  Hope that makes some sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes we need to have a Marketing sprint to tidy up some of the docs on
>>>>>> this stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tyler
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>
>
>
>