Re: [gentoo-project] Representation of Gentoo on third-party platforms

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Manuel Rüger <mrueg@g.o> wrote:
>
> Should there be a general entity that takes care of accounts and
> credentials in order ensure that Gentoo can grant and revoke access to
> those representations?

I think the more important question is whether anybody actually wants
to be a part of such an entity.  If nobody cares to do the work, then
whether such an entity should exist is a bit moot.  It sounds like a
good idea though.

> Does the CoC also apply on those third-party
> platforms?

Only if they want to use the name "Gentoo" or its logo.  Doing so
requires following:
https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html

It says, "You may incorporate the Gentoo name into the name of any
group or event, provided that:..."  It is followed by 6 bullets.  If a
group doesn't do all 6, it is out of compliance barring some kind of
special permission.

Besides, why would we want people representing themselves as "Gentoo"
and not doing things like "Give accurate information in the spirit of
being helpful?"

In any case, as far as I'm aware most of the sites that were mentioned
generally do follow the Code of Conduct, so this seems to be a bit of
a hypothetical point.  Certainly if a community wanted to call itself
Gentoo and didn't treat people with the kind of kindness and civility
we normally use on our mailing lists then that could be something we'd
want to do something about.

> Some handles and groups call themselves "official" or "The official
> mirror" in the case of github.
> But what makes a representation "official"?
> If it's run by developers? If it's covered by a entity inside gentoo
> (like gentoo-pr or gentoo-ops project)? Or do we need different criterias?

The name/logo policy says that no outside group can claim that it is official.

Things run by Gentoo of course can do so.  And that is probably the
only distinction that should be made.

-- 
Rich