Revise partner reference requirements in terms and conditions

[ebullient]

Updated partner reference guidelines to require mentioning all vendors providing EOL support.

voting group: @commonhaus/cf-egc

Do one of the following:

• React with 👍 (:+1:) or Approve a review if it looks good to you
• React with 👀 (:eyes:) if you're "ok" with it (it may not be your favorite)
• If you think it needs discussion or revision:
  • Create a review, add your comments and require changes
  • Use the +- button to make a suggestion (instead of just adding a comment).

[haus-rules-bot]

🗳️ 11 of 20 members of @commonhaus/cf-egc have voted (reaction or review, quorum=2/3).

Reaction	Total	Team	Voting members
approve	11	9	FDelporte, Naros, aalmiray, cealsair, ebullient, henri-tremblay, kenfinnigan, marc0der, tristantarrant
ok	2	2	criccomini, gavinking

Additional input (🙏 🥰 🙌):
dmlloyd(👍), eitch(👍)

The following votes were not counted (duplicates):
Naros(👍), cealsair(👍)

A vote manager comment containing vote::result will close the vote.

[yrodiere]

I think "fair" kind of implies "mention everyone" already, but okay, more clarity is better :)

[gavinking]

I think "fair" kind of implies "mention everyone" already, but okay, more clarity is better :)

Actually I think "all vendors" is too strong; we should be allowed to exclude vendors we think are spammy or scammy.

[yrodiere]

I think "fair" kind of implies "mention everyone" already, but okay, more clarity is better :)

Actually I think "all vendors" is too strong; we should be allowed to exclude vendors we think are spammy or scammy.

"all vendors which provide EOL support" is meant as "all vendors which are part of the open-source sustainability initiative", I believe. I agree we want to avoid spammy/scummy vendors, but if these manage to be part of that initiative, we've failed elsewhere...

[gavinking]

"all vendors which provide EOL support" is meant as "all vendors which are part of the open-source sustainability initiative", I believe.

If that's what it means then that's what it should say, no?

[tomjenkinson]

Is there a list of these so projects know who to list? Will it be on https://github.com/commonhaus/foundation/blob/72228fb0c5f145f33fecebe4e7196079e3c22096/agreements/project-contribution/terms-and-conditions.md?

[ebullient]

If someone is offering paid EOL support for your project, you will know. They will ask to be listed. ;)

[tomjenkinson]

Thanks - how about removing the burden of discovery from the different projects, by going with something like all other OSSI partners who request to be listed for an individual project, and provide EOL support for that project. Otherwise I might worry I haven't listed everyone due to not knowing because it does say must?

[ebullient]

Again.. if someone adds support for your project, they will let you know. They will want to be listed. And in that case, you must list them.

[tomjenkinson]

Well, it might just be me and maybe this is how documents of this type are written, but I would say if it says "must do something" we need to try to take reasonable steps to do that. Hence I was trying to reduce the burden on the project needing to seek out those people they should list. I wouldn't know how to find that. I think you are saying that we don't need to seek people out and just respond when asked, that is fine for me and I think the wording I suggested would then make it clear it's not my responsibility to find them.

So it's clear, I propose to change If a project chooses to reference an individual partner, it must also reference all other OSSI partners that provide EOL support for that project, in a fair and non-misleading manner consistent with the Foundation’s Trademark Policy and Code of Conduct. to If a project chooses to reference an individual partner, it must also reference all other OSSI partners who request to be listed for an individual project, and provide EOL support for that project, in a fair and non-misleading manner consistent with the Foundation’s Trademark Policy and Code of Conduct. Or maybe it's better as: If a project chooses to reference an individual partner, it must also reference all other OSSI partners that provide EOL support for that project and who request to be listed for an individual project, in a fair and non-misleading manner consistent with the Foundation’s Trademark Policy and Code of Conduct.

However, it might be that the foundation is fine for us to that that approach (needing to be informed before we can fulfil the obligation) and will be understanding of projects that have not fulfilled this requirement (because of the need to list "vendor x" not having been clear to them).

[ebullient]

I think the latter interpretation is correct. If you didn't list them because you didn't know, that is easy to correct as soon as you do.

[tomjenkinson]

fair and non-misleading
Does this mean more all earlier in the sentence? If not, is there some guidance on what that means from a trademark point of view (maybe it's in https://github.com/commonhaus/foundation/blob/72228fb0c5f145f33fecebe4e7196079e3c22096/policies/trademark-guidelines.md somewhere?) or the Code of Conduct (https://www.commonhaus.org/policies/code-of-conduct/).

How about just:
If a project chooses to reference an individual partner, it must also reference all other OSSI partners that provide EOL support for that project in a manner consistent with the Foundation’s Trademark Policy and Code of Conduct.
?

[ebullient]

This is more about avoiding endorsement or preference. You could list all with an obvious bias toward one...

[ebullient]

Also: it is "individual partners" because you could start with two, and "individual partner or partners" is unnecessarily wordy.