johntomcat7408-cmyk commented on issue #3830:
URL: https://github.com/apache/amoro/issues/3830#issuecomment-5150209551

   I completed an initial read-only audit against `master` at 
`efbedc396fa178abe39ec24071f91f24163d8c9a` and the public website on 2026-08-01.
   
   Short answer to ["Was this dealt 
with?"](https://github.com/apache/amoro/issues/3830#issuecomment-4275530236): 
**partly, but not completely**.
   
   ### Already in place
   
   - The official site is hosted at `https://amoro.apache.org/`.
   - The top navigation contains the required ASF, License, Donate, Sponsors, 
Security, and Privacy links.
   - `README.md` and `DISCLAIMER` identify the project as `Apache Amoro 
(incubating)` and include the incubation disclaimer.
   - The homepage displays `Apache Amoro™` and includes the standard incubation 
disclaimer plus an ASF trademark notice.
   - The download page distinguishes ASF releases from pre-incubation 
non-Apache releases.
   
   ### Repository / website gaps
   
   1. **The disclaimer and trademark attribution are homepage-only.**
      `site/amoro-theme/layouts/index.html` renders `home-footer.html`, but the 
shared non-homepage template `site/amoro-theme/layouts/partials/body.html` does 
not render any footer. Public pages such as `/quick-start/`, `/docs/latest/`, 
`/download/`, and `/join-community/` therefore have no incubation disclaimer or 
trademark attribution.
   
   2. **The existing homepage attribution is incomplete.**
      `site/amoro-theme/layouts/partials/home-footer.html` mentions Apache 
project names and the feather logo generically, but does not explicitly 
attribute `Apache Amoro`, `Amoro`, or the Amoro project logo. It also lacks the 
generic non-ASF attribution recommended by the [Apache Project Branding 
Policy](https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs):
      `All other marks mentioned may be trademarks or registered trademarks of 
their respective owners.`
      This matters because the site displays third-party product names and 
company logos.
   
   3. **Incubation naming is inconsistent at the first project reference.**
      `site/amoro-site/hugo.toml` uses `Apache Amoro™`, while 
`site/amoro-docs/hugo.toml` uses `Amoro`. Key pages such as `docs/_index.md`, 
Quickstart, and Download first refer to the product as bare `Amoro`. The 
[Incubator Branding Guide](https://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html) 
requires the first reference to use `Apache Amoro` and mention that the project 
is incubating.
   
   4. **Logo and repository links need review.**
      The official `site/amoro-theme/static/img/amoro-logo.svg` does not 
include a visible `TM` or incubating qualifier. The shared header still links 
to `https://github.com/apache/incubator-amoro` instead of 
`https://github.com/apache/amoro`. The `.asf.yaml` description uses `Apache 
Amoro(incubating)` without the normal separating space.
   
   ### Items needing maintainer / IPMC confirmation
   
   - No DOAP file is tracked in this repository. The branding policy allows 
equivalent structured metadata, so this should be checked against the 
Incubator/ASF metadata source before treating it as a defect.
   - The Incubator status page still lists the old `apache/incubator-amoro` 
issue and source URLs. That page is outside this repository.
   - Some external generated/reference pages use `Apache Amoro` without 
`(incubating)`. Per the [PMC Branding 
Responsibilities](https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html), 
a podling should coordinate with the Incubator PMC before contacting external 
parties, so I have not contacted anyone.
   
   ### Proposed split
   
   1. A small website PR: add a shared site-wide footer/banner, include the 
standard incubation disclaimer, explicitly attribute the Amoro marks and logo, 
add the generic third-party attribution, and make the first shared project 
reference `Apache Amoro™ (Incubating)`.
   2. A separate small metadata/link cleanup: update the legacy header 
repository URL and normalize the `.asf.yaml` description.
   3. Track Incubator metadata and third-party references separately with 
PPMC/IPMC coordination.
   
   Would this be an acceptable first-PR scope? I would avoid a repository-wide 
text replacement and keep external follow-up out of the website PR.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to