[advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris

[Sara Dornsife]

I guess I have been drinking the Kool-aid because I believe that Sun has 
been a good and generous steward of this community. There are 
undoubtedly trademark obstacles, as well as technical ones, but on the 
whole, Sun has done a lot (and is still doing a lot) to honestly find 
resolution for these for the sake of a "healthy" community.
Sara


Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2007, at 01:16, Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, Eric.
>>>>
>>>> To make it clear, let's change the words here. Let's say that  
>>>> some  other CG is working on, say, a new installer
>>>>
>>>> - OGB asks CG to design a new installer
>>>> - CG goes and does it, comes back with a result
>>>> - OGB says "thank-you" and gives it a stamp of approval.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds outrageous, no?  So why should the expert work product  
>>>> of  the Advocacy CG be subject to either a commissioning step or  
>>>> of an  approval step by the OGB, which exists only to resolve  
>>>> disputes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In this case, who is likely to be doing the work, someone at
>>> Sun or someone outside of Sun?
>>
>>
>> In which case? Both are the same. An open source community does not  
>> care about the motivations of its participants as long as the 
>> results  are synchronised to the benefit of the community.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>> What we have to reconcile here is what we want/need with
>>> what people are willing to give (for free.)
>>
>>
>> Not at all. The people writing the installer may be being paid by 
>> Sun  but that does not negate their contribution. We don't have to 
>> ask one  of the marketing experts in the community to work on an 
>> installer  just in case the person with the skills to work on the 
>> installer is  being paid by Sun. "Free" has nothing to do with it 
>> (unless you are  referring to the mutual liberty of all the 
>> participants).
>>
>>> Open source works because a lot of people are willing to
>>> contribute _code_ for free because there a lot of people
>>> who believe in that.  I don't know that there are as many
>>> "open source" artists, do you?
>>
>>
>> No, I disagree. Open source works because every participant does the  
>> work they choose to do based on their (often unspoken) motivations,  
>> yet the work is combined with the work of others to mutual benefit.  
>> In this case, it seems likely one of the members of the advocacy  
>> project would go recruit new contributors to join the community and  
>> contribute their skills. The motivations of those new contributors  
>> are not relevant if the collective work of the community is achieved.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>> My proposed process still stands:
>>
>> 1.  Advocacy CG solicits brainstorming
>> 2.  Advocacy CG sifts ideas and distills the most workable and  
>> popular ones
>> 3.  Advocacy CG gets help (recruits new community members) to screen  
>> out ideas that can't be used
>> 4.  Advocacy CG gets help (recruits new community members) to draw  
>> possible mascots from the resulting short list
>> 5.  Advocacy CG conducts a poll to select the preferred mascot from  
>> the short list
>>
>> Yes, it is very likely that the new community members in steps 3 & 4  
>> will be paid by Sun. So are you. That doesn't make your contribution  
>> void and neither will it make theirs void. Also, due to the way  
>> OpenSolaris is set up, it's likely the screening conducted at step 3  
>> won't be subject to review. That's a real shame, but the final 
>> choice  at step 5 is solidly inside the community.
>
>
> Seems like a perfectly reasonable process.
>
>
> Jim