-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 634
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Naming convention guidance for new projects #1514
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Davanum Srinivas <[email protected]>
Note sent to k8s steering inhttps://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/8738 |
@@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ Projects may enter the CNCF either by applying as a sandbox project or applying | |||
|
|||
Evaluting projects against the criteria does take some time and the TOC has recently modified the Due Diligence process to reduce duplication of work, streamline handoffs, and provide better transparency to the project and its adopters about its conformance and implementation of the criteria. | |||
|
|||
## Naming conventions for projects | |||
|
|||
All CNCF projects are subject to the [Trademark Usage Policies](https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage) set by Linux Foundation. Specifically, new or incoming projects should avoid use existing trademarks in their proposed project names. In addition, if they are intending to use a popular prefix/suffix of an existing project (like "kube" or "k8s"), then they should consult the leadership group of the respective project to seek their approval and document the consensus reached. Existing projects are encouraged to document their naming guidelines to make this process smooth as well to avoid lengthy deliberation process for new project names. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
AFAIK, k8s is a tademark of kubernetes so should be avoided.
I think we should ask new/incoming projects to follow existing project's naming guideline and not use the reserved prefix/suffix based on the guideline if the project has a naming guideline. Consult the project leadership could be perceived as subjective as some project could be mostly owned by a single company.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/existing trademarks/[existing rademarks](see https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademarks)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@linsun k8s
and kube
is not trademarked. We have to cover the cases where the naming doc is not yet created by the leadership (Steering, TC or equivalent), so we have to cover that as well. I fully expect k8s steering folks to draft something soon, we just have to work with other projects to do theirs.
We should not be trying to deal with single company
here. there are other mechanisms in our arsenal to deal with that i think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FYI, on the last TOC call of December we did confirm that "K8s®" is in the list of trademarks on https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademarks. The assumption was that it was not. "Kube" alone is not trademarked according to the list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Consult the project leadership could be perceived as subjective as some project could be mostly owned by a single company.
We should not be trying to deal with single company here. there are other mechanisms in our arsenal to deal with that i think.
+1, IMHO single-company-owned projects is something that needs addressing regardless and shouldn't be in scope here.
(FWIW in this particular example, that's not the case, as we have maximum representation rules limiting to 2/7 of the committee ... I think those rules have worked well if only to at least limit perception of excessive individual company influence.)
@dims is there anywhere tracking that topic currently?
I fully expect k8s steering folks to draft something soon, we just have to work with other projects to do theirs.
Yes, people are still filtering back from holiday vacations but I expect a draft soon. We meet tomorrow.
xref: for those who are not yet aware, the trigger for this discussion/policy was #1484 |
We have an incoming request from Kubernetes Steering about names for new incoming projects:
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/8726
If this PR has consensus and is merged, then follow ups would be:
NOTE: This is not a retro-active policy, we don't go back to revisit projects that already use popular prefixes to change them, this is meant to be forward looking guidance for projects that will be processed by TOC once this merges.