The bit I'm not sure is covered by the Change process is the old "Board" approval that covers trademarks, it might be that it's decided that it's no longer required, or something that FESCo can escalate if they think is necessary or we could amend the Changes process to add a small Spins section about Council and trademarks requirements.

> Good point. Making this up as I go along, I think we might be okay to > have a blanket grant of trademark use for all spins which are approved > by FESCo and which follow the basic Spins Guidelines — particularly, > all bits must be from Fedora proper. But it's probably also a good idea > to get some advice from Legal on whether that kind of blanket allowance > is a good idea. Agreed, email the legal@ list to get advice on a blanket allowance. That process change seems reasonable to me.

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 09:25:19AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Actually, on review, there is an existing policy > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_approval_policy>;, which > states that specific trademark approvals can be delegated to various > SIGs. In this case, that "SIG" would be FESCo; I'll look at updating Oh, no, wait, that policy also includes a "submit to Council" step. I guess the idea is to reduce Council (formerly Board) involvement to oversight and approval of something already vetted? *digs into thread linked at the bottom of that message* Yeah, okay, to quote David Nalley, the intent is "it gets the board out of the 'QA/Design/Rel-eng/Spins' business", and that seems relevant reasonable today is well. And I guess I don't see a huge reason to not just keep the stamp-of-approval-from-the-council step. I don't think there will be a big increased workload from thousands of new spins appearing. A lot of the previous concern was over the private Board ticket system, and since we now have a _public_ ticket system, that shouldn't be a worry. The one thing I might suggest is that the Council (possibly through the Engineering Representative) probably should be notified when the FESCo process _begins_, so that if there are any concerns, they can be relayed back _before_ all of the rest of the work. (For example, if someone proposes a Fedora Kitten Murder Spin, the Council could indicate skepticism _before_ a lot of work is put into it, even if FESCo thinks the _technical_ details are perfectly fine.)

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:44:48AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > This could go into the Change policy, if the change is a spin, notify the > council so they can raise any concerns over trademark usage and ack the > trademark usage or something to that effect. Or more generally: "If the Change may require trademark approval (for example, if it is a new Spin)..."

Since the Spins process has fallen down and there has not been a spins SIG meeting in years that I know of. I think we should update https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Process to point people to the Fedora Change process and just use that for the addition of new spins. ensuring that kickstarts are reviewed by at least one non owner before being pulled in. Thoughts, objections or counter proposals?