On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:17 AM, ext Jody Garnett wrote:
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.
Yes, the project overviews managed as part of the LiveDVD seem like
an excellent thing to maintain as the 'project fact sheets' at
pages like:
http://www.osgeo.org/openlayers
Using the work done on them and maintaining that side-by-side
pairing going forward feels like a solid goal.
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.
I consider this to be the case. OSGeo is not about "The limited set of
projects the foundation acts as the home for", it's about pushing all of
Open Source Geo, which the LiveDVD is an excellent tool for. When we're
talking about source code, or about legal responsibility, or things like that,
I think it may be important to use Foundation incubation as an important
metric, but to users, I don't think that that is an important distinction,
nor do I think it is one that we need to force into their faces.
-- Chris
Jody
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Alex Mandel <tech_dev@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@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
--
_______________________________________________
Live-demo mailing list
Live-demo@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc