> On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:06, Oleg Nenashev <
o.v.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our public doc is still behind the actual state, my bad. Will make sure to file a PR tomorrow on the morning. At the Oct 14 governance meeting we agreed that:
>
> * We adopt Linux Foundation pre-approved trademark patterns and usage guidelines
> * We are not applying requirements retrospectively, everything remains approved
> * Until the transition to CDF is over, we may make exceptions in the naming policy. Example: precedent in already approved trademarks
>
> The third bullet is where we reserve some freedom at the cost of ambiguity. Maybe we need stricter examples. Just forcing the LF guidelines is also the option
>
Thanks Oleg!
I read the meeting notes and saw your PR, thanks for that as well.
As far as I can tell, the last time we approved a name following the old pattern was several years ago, before we started moving to CDF. I think it's best to start with a clean slate, so I'm -1 on the trademark usage request with exceptional pattern for now. The name should instead follow the LF guidelines we decided to use.
(And FWIW I do not consider us continuing to allow previously approved trademark usages under a different ruleset to be precedent for allowing new ones; if it was, why even bother adopting the new guidelines?)