Hi, > Thanks for your reply to report potential branding issues. The PMC is > actively responding to these comments. > > * https://github.com/apache/incubator-opendal/pull/3829/files > * https://github.com/apache/incubator-opendal/pull/3830/files > * https://github.com/apache/incubator-opendal/pull/3831/files > * https://github.com/apache/incubator-opendal/pull/3833/files > * https://github.com/apache/incubator-opendal/pull/3838/files
Thanks for that. > For third-party references, when a PMC member notices one that can be > confusing, there is a reaction: > > * https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb/pull/2653/files > * https://github.com/zwpaper/dilu/pull/1/files > * https://github.com/datafuselabs/databend-docs/pull/285/files I noticed the domain opendal.databend.rs mentioned there. Who owns that domain? > These are instances for "manage its brand and ASF’s trademarks". I > believe that the PMC becomes more experienced on branding topics with > your reports; thank you. The point is I shouldn't have to report these; the (P)PMC should be managing this on their own. >>> About the https://opendal.apache.org/docs/python/opendal.html, >>> Please see https://incubator.apache.org/guides/distribution.html. > > The first sentence of this page currently is "Apache OpenDAL™ Python binding". But the first and more prominent mention of OpenDAL doesn’t include Apache. The page is also missing mention of ASF’s trademarks. I think you need a little more branding and naming is needed to comply with ASF's policy. Other pages I click on have no mention of Apache. e.g. https://opendal.apache.org/docs/python/opendal/layers.html Other document pages have similar issues, e.g. https://opendal.apache.org/docs/haskell/OpenDAL.html. I think a little more work needs to be done here, and again, I shouldn't have to point out the issues. Please look at your documentation and the policy and see what needs to be fixed, or better still, discuss it on your mailing list. It’s far better that you work out what needs to be corrected on your own than for someone outside your project to list what might not be in line with policy. > As for the package name, I argued for the current guidelines in [1] > that you can follow. You may have different opinions and that's OK. > Xuanwo explained more technical details and community feedback in [1]. Other projects have different reasons for doing what they do; don’t confuse that with permission to do what they do without a reason. Kind Regards, Justin
