[haiku] Re: Japanese Haiku distribution "Basho" R1/Alpha 1 released

  • From: Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:40:39 +0200

Hi Matt,

2009/10/6 Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 21:26, Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Well, by this reasoning exactly you should not put this out in the
>> open (for the sake of openness). You as Haiku Inc. have the mandate to
>> handle finance and TRADEMARKS. This is about trademarks. The trademark
>> policy is clear and was (and is) open for community discussion. The
>> application in individual cases is initially not a public discussion.
>> Handling this is your job. A simple email with a notice to what you
>> were doing (or what you have done, up to you) is more in order.
>>
>
> For clarity's sake, are you suggesting that :
>
> 1) the distro & trademark usage policy should be defined by the
> community at large, whether that means everyone or those with voting
> privileges
>
> 2) whatever those guidelines are , should be enforced by Haiku Inc.
>
> Note: If so, i personally agree.

Yes, just like the community is not in micromanagement of the
finances, it also shouldn't be involved with the implementation of the
trademark policies.

It is up to Haiku inc. to judge within their jurisdiction, and if
unsure, they can decide to put it up for opinions. 'We' (the
community) should trust you in making the right decisions about what
is in jurisdiction. The community can always object or redefine some
ideas after the fact.

In the same vein, this also means that I believe that there is no
reason to discuss things within Haiku Inc. that clearly cannot be put
within their jurisdiction. I am referring to the recent Haiku Fire
discussion, which was prematurely imported to the haiku-inc mailing
list. Now I know that the haikufire discussion was not about imposing
an opinion, but the reality is that Haiku Inc. should have only come
into action if:
a) haikufire would seek funding from Haiku Inc.
b) haikufire wanted to use trademarked material.

I know that you only had a 'discovery' discussion of haikufire, but by
putting that discussion on a list with a subset of the community just
gives the wrong impression (and is wrong overall). To prevent these
kinds of misunderstandings (or perhaps even misjudgements), I suggest
you consider closing the haiku-inc mailing list for everybody but the
board members, so that the board may freely and internally discuss
everything they want. And that the community can be consulted on other
channels in other cases.

N>

P.S. I understand that the role of the board members of Haiku Inc. is
ambiguous, as they are both in the community and 'above' it when it
comes to certain discussions. I guess we can look at this when it
really becomes a problem.

Other related posts: