What is the current status of the ZF? Any progress happened on the outstanding trademark issue with ZEA? -aj
Andreas Jung wrote:
What is the current status of the ZF?
The process is proceeding swiftly, and hopefully smoothly. We have draft documents of the TM Agreement and the By-Laws, and are well along the way to drafts of the IP Policy and the remaining documents. We have formed a small committee of some representative groups in the Zope community, cutting across interests and geography, and we have IRC meetings to make sure that at the highest level, the initial documents will represent a broad community interest. Before the actual formation of the Foundation, we will post all of the relevant documents for public comment, so those that are not on the current committee will still get a chance to weigh in before the By-Laws (for example) become final. Even after that, the Membership can alter the By-Laws in the future, so this is just the "starting point". It's still quite possible that everything will be wrapped up by the end of October (as originally projected), but we did have the delay in starting (more on that below) and there's still a lot to do, so it could slip a bit, but we certainly are doing everything in our power to make that date.
Any progress happened on the outstanding trademark issue with ZEA?
I was hoping to avoid this topic in public, given the heat it generated in the past. However, it doesn't seem fair to avoid a direct question, given some recent turns. We have had _numerous_ discussions (all in email) with two members of ZEA. We came to an agreement and all seemed perfectly on target, which is why we began all of the other ZF documents and committee meetings, etc. Unfortunately, ZEA never delivered a single draft of the proposed transfer documents, even though they said that the documents already existed for the Plone trademark transfer. We have been amazingly patient, and have waited _weeks_ between attempts to remind them, bug them, etc. Each time, we get a "sorry, we don't know how much longer it will be, but it shouldn't be much longer." This week, we informed ZEA that we had restarted our original legal challenge to their TM filing, as we simply can't understand the delay and complete lack of communication. Since the legal challenge is likely to take significantly longer than a contractual transfer, it is not possible to have that completed by the time the Foundation would be ready to be launched. Our original plan (which caused the previous public ruckus) was to hold off on the Foundation until this was resolved. This week, before we restarted the legal process, Rob Page made an alternate proposal internally, which seems reasonable to me. While we haven't officially decided to do this, it is very likely that we will: In the event that we have not secured the transfer of the TM registrations from ZEA by the time the Foundation is launched, the Foundation will _not_ have an initial TM license from ZC. The Foundation will still exist, and might get a more limited TM license from ZC, or perhaps even none at all. Whenever the ZEA TM matter is resolved, we'll proceed with the correct TM license for the Foundation. I'm very sorry to be reporting the above. The people that we have worked with at ZEA have been very reasonable, and have come to an amicable solution with a minimum of hassle on either side. Unfortunately, they have simply failed to deliver even a single draft page of a document for us to review, and that is no longer an acceptable situation.
Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
What is the current status of the ZF?
The process is proceeding swiftly, and hopefully smoothly. We have draft documents of the TM Agreement and the By-Laws, and are well along the way to drafts of the IP Policy and the remaining documents.
We have formed a small committee of some representative groups in the Zope community, cutting across interests and geography, and we have IRC meetings to make sure that at the highest level, the initial documents will represent a broad community interest.
Can the name of people that are part of this small committee be published ? I'd like to know who might be representing me, this way I can ask him or them about the direction taken and maybe actually give them my opinion.
Before the actual formation of the Foundation, we will post all of the relevant documents for public comment, so those that are not on the current committee will still get a chance to weigh in before the By-Laws (for example) become final. Even after that, the Membership can alter the By-Laws in the future, so this is just the "starting point".
This is clear. However, the starting point will be much more constructive if most members of the community that the Foundation claims willing to serve would have a chance to give their opinion on the bylaws as early as possible. This would avoid that the persons currently working in the small committee feel personally attacked when one of us dislikes or disagrees about some of the points and makes it known loudly... after a lot of hard work has already been done.
It's still quite possible that everything will be wrapped up by the end of October (as originally projected), but we did have the delay in starting (more on that below) and there's still a lot to do, so it could slip a bit, but we certainly are doing everything in our power to make that date.
Ill finish with my usual recall that english is not my mothertongue and that it implies that I could be misusing some words without knowing about it. <snip> -- Godefroid Chapelle (aka __gotcha) http://bubblenet.be
Whoops. Sorry. I would have replied to the list, except that I didn't realize that you wrote to the list when I saw it in my personal email. Here it is :-) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Zope Foundation? Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:20:00 -0400 From: Godefroid Chapelle <gotcha@bubblenet.be> To: Hadar Pedhazur <hadar@zope.com> References: <4911BBDAE4A6812BCE6596DA@suxmac> <dgev97$1hn$1@sea.gmane.org> <432BF47E.4030800@bubblenet.be> <432C0823.40505@zope.com> Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Can the name of people that are part of this small committee be published ? I'd like to know who might be representing me, this way I can ask him or them about the direction taken and maybe actually give them my opinion.
I don't think this should be a problem, but I'll have to check with Rob first, and then the people on the committee, to make sure they don't mind being contacted. After all, they are "volunteering" their time, and they might not want the extra burden of communicating with many individuals.
Still, this is a good idea, so I will float it early next week.
However, the starting point will be much more constructive if most members of the community that the Foundation claims willing to serve would have a chance to give their opinion on the bylaws as early as possible.
Agreed. To repeat, we will post everything before the Foundation gets formed. Obviously, you (and everyone else) prefer to see it earlier rather than later, but there will be time to comment.
This would avoid that the persons currently working in the small committee feel personally attacked when one of us dislikes or disagrees about some of the points and makes it known loudly... after a lot of hard work has already been done.
Also agreed, which is why they may prefer to stay anonymous ;-)
Ill finish with my usual recall that english is not my mothertongue and that it implies that I could be misusing some words without knowing about it.
This was perfect, no need to apologize :-)
Thanks for your quick answer. Is there a reason not sending it to the list as well ? I would appreciate if you would send it also to the mailing list. Thanks -- Godefroid Chapelle (aka __gotcha) http://bubblenet.be
Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Can the name of people that are part of this small committee be published ? I'd like to know who might be representing me, this way I can ask him or them about the direction taken and maybe actually give them my opinion.
I don't think this should be a problem, but I'll have to check with Rob first, and then the people on the committee, to make sure they don't mind being contacted. After all, they are "volunteering" their time, and they might not want the extra burden of communicating with many individuals.
Still, this is a good idea, so I will float it early next week.
Has there been any steps made about this ? <snip> -- Godefroid Chapelle (aka __gotcha)- BubbleNet http://bubblenet.be
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Can the name of people that are part of this small committee be published ? I'd like to know who might be representing me, this way I can ask him or them about the direction taken and maybe actually give them my opinion.
I don't think this should be a problem, but I'll have to check with Rob first, and then the people on the committee, to make sure they don't mind being contacted. After all, they are "volunteering" their time, and they might not want the extra burden of communicating with many individuals.
Still, this is a good idea, so I will float it early next week.
Has there been any steps made about this ?
Yes. We have heard from all but one person on the committee, and they have said yes. We'll try to track the last person down over the weekend, and publish the names on Monday (we'll likely publish the rest without this one person if we can't track him down).
Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
We have had _numerous_ discussions (all in email) with two members of ZEA. We came to an agreement and all seemed perfectly on target, which is why we began all of the other ZF documents and committee meetings, etc.
Unfortunately, ZEA never delivered a single draft of the proposed transfer documents, even though they said that the documents already existed for the Plone trademark transfer.
...snip... Hadar, These are serious claims. I talked to Paul who looked into it and gave me the following information. Note that, since the negotiations are finished and the terms are agreed to, we can talk about this with whomever is interested. Some quick points: 1) ZEA emailed ZC on Aug 29, twice on Aug 30, Sep 5, and Sep 15. 2) The Sep 15 note reminded ZC of two points: a. We don't have the paperwork yet. We can't transfer something we don't have. (Contrary to public statements, the Plone paperwork hasn't arrived either.) b. We can't finish the transfer until ZC provides foreign address information for certain countries. This was discussed in the mails cited above. 3) ZEA has well over a hundred manhours over the last 18 months on this trademark. We are getting no compensation for past, present, or future work. Yet, ZEA continues to help the process, as the emails will attest. 4) ZEA gave the contact info for the trademark attorney to ZC, encouraged ZC to contact her (hasn't happened), and instructed her to help. These points might not be 100% right, ZEA might have made mistakes, we're not perfect, the trademark attorney could respond faster, we could email ZC twice per day, etc. On a personal note, ZEA is working for free to help ZC improve the value of a sharelholder asset. ZC might have legitimate complaints about ZEA's performance. However, public mudslinging does not incent our pro bono help on the transfer process. As ZEA has stated, ZC can go directly to the trademark lawyer. Instead, public mudslinging and constantly threatening the Zope Foundation could have a dire effect. We are one reporter away from a "Zope: The Next Mambo?" story[1][2]. We should immediately stop using the mailing lists and the Zope Foundation as negotiation tools for ZC property. ZEA might have mishandled things, or you might simply believe ZEA isn't acting in good faith. Let's find an alternate outlet for this. For example, add someone from ZEA to the advisory board that you mentioned. If you feel that ZEA isn't acting right, take it to the advisory board. ZEA gets a chance to respond. If the advisory board votes against ZEA, ZEA gets publicly thrown off the advisory board. ZEA has agreed (from the beginning) to hand over the marks at no financial gain. Once ZC provides the missing information and ZEA gets the papers, we're probably a few weeks away from wrapping this up. Any niggles in this are just niggles. The deal is done and there are no disagreements on the terms. The transfer process, although complicated, is in progress. Given this, the risk of being "The Next Mambo" outweighs the perceived benefit from mudslinging. -Matt [1] http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1850298,00.asp [2] http://www.mamboserver.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=115&Ite... -- Matt Hamilton matth@netsight.co.uk Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting
Matt Hamilton wrote:
Hadar, These are serious claims. I talked to Paul who looked into it and gave me the following information. Note that, since the negotiations are finished and the terms are agreed to, we can talk about this with whomever is interested.
We have always been here to discuss the issues, and have continued to discuss them with numerous emails with a ZEA managing partner since my post yesterday. We have not ignored a single communication between us.
Some quick points:
1) ZEA emailed ZC on Aug 29, twice on Aug 30, Sep 5, and Sep 15.
True, nearly always in response to a prodding email from us, but that's not really the point.
2) The Sep 15 note reminded ZC of two points:
a. We don't have the paperwork yet. We can't transfer something we don't have. (Contrary to public statements, the Plone paperwork hasn't arrived either.)
I'm glad that someone finally admitted this (that the Plone paperwork hasn't been done!). As you say, it has been been claimed _publicly_ that this transfer was _complete_, and that only the WIPO database hasn't been updated. As you can imagine, if the previous public claims were taken to be true (which we did!), then it should be a matter of "search/replace" 'Plone Foundation' for 'Zope Corporation' and we'd already have been done. I don't think it served anyone's interest to so loudly put ZC down for pointing out that ZEA still owned the Plone TM, when in fact it turns out that this is still the case months after we pointed it out...
b. We can't finish the transfer until ZC provides foreign address information for certain countries. This was discussed in the mails cited above.
This has already privately been pointed out to ZEA as incorrect. That said, even if it was correct, not a single paragraph of "terms" has been sent to us with a "blank" address line. Surely, a draft of the agreement can be shared with us before this address is supplied? Also, there are _many_ countries (the ones we care most about, as we've been very honest and transparent about this fact in public) where the transfer can happen _immediately_ to our US address. To hold up the transfer in the UK (for example), because we might not qualify in Algeria (no offense to Algerians!!!), is beyond our comprehension.
3) ZEA has well over a hundred manhours over the last 18 months on this trademark. We are getting no compensation for past, present, or future work. Yet, ZEA continues to help the process, as the emails will attest.
Agreed, and we appreciate that. Let's not rehash that ZEA shouldn't have ever spent one hour or one penny in this process, had they simply told us that _we_ were in danger from the "subversives"...
4) ZEA gave the contact info for the trademark attorney to ZC, encouraged ZC to contact her (hasn't happened), and instructed her to help.
This too is bogus. She is your vendor, and you are her client. You can't get any paperwork out of her even for the Plone Foundation, where there is "no contention or timing issue", but you expect us to deal with her directly, when we have no business relationship with her. Sorry, it doesn't fly.
These points might not be 100% right, ZEA might have made mistakes, we're not perfect, the trademark attorney could respond faster, we could email ZC twice per day, etc.
This is silly. It has dragged on for months, not days. If we don't write, we get _no updates_. Only when we ask, do we get updates. The updates always say "soon", and then we get _no updates_ again until we ask again, when we again hear "soon"...
On a personal note, ZEA is working for free to help ZC improve the value of a sharelholder asset. ZC might have legitimate complaints about ZEA's performance. However, public mudslinging does not incent our pro bono help on the transfer process. As ZEA has stated, ZC can go directly to the trademark lawyer.
I don't agree that my post yesterday was public mudslinging. In fact, I went out of my way to say that we reached an agreement quickly and amicably, and that working with the ZEA people was a positive process. That simply doesn't negate the fact that no "progress" has been made, even though a theoretical agreement has been reached. Andreas is a recognized leader in the Zope community (being the primary release manager for Zope 2.x), and is someone I personally respect from my years of interaction with him when he was a Zope employee. He asked two legitimate questions, that deserved answers (I'm sure many more people were hoping someone else would ask). As I pointed out today to one of the ZEA managing partners, the last communication we had from ZEA _after_ we informed them that we had restarted the legal process (the communication was from this same partner) stated clearly that there was nothing that ZEA could do to move the process forward. It didn't seem so harsh to simply answer Andreas' question accurately, with no disparagement to ZEA or their people.
Instead, public mudslinging and constantly threatening the Zope Foundation could have a dire effect. We are one reporter away from a "Zope: The Next Mambo?" story[1][2].
Hmmm. Not only wasn't there a threat to the Foundation, I went so far as to share an internal idea that Rob proposed, which would allow the Foundation to launch on time, even if this wasn't sorted out. It seems to me that we are taking great care to continue to do the right thing by the community, regardless of our current situation with ZEA.
We should immediately stop using the mailing lists and the Zope Foundation as negotiation tools for ZC property.
And yet you would like yours to be the last word. While I completely agree that this is not the best forum to debate these issues, I am also not afraid of doing so. I believe that our position is reasonable, and that we have been 100% transparent in pursuing it. Therefore, as much as I too would like to avoid these public outbursts, I am willing to be judged by what we _do_, as well as by what we say. You could have written to me privately if you really didn't want to continue this in public, but you chose to respond publicly, which is fine, and I will do so as long as you do as well.
ZEA might have mishandled things, or you might simply believe ZEA isn't acting in good faith. Let's find an alternate outlet for this.
I believe ZEA is acting in completely good faith. I believe that they are also not handling it well. I believe that if we had understood at any point before today that the Plone Foundation transfer documents did not exist either, that we might have taken a different course of action, but that doesn't mean that the delay would have been acceptable anyway. The Plone Foundation might be able to wait another 10 years to get the TM transferred. We have a date by which we'd like to launch the Zope Foundation, because we told everyone that we would try to launch by then. It was our belief that this would best be accomplished by having the TM issue resolved between us by then. That's still the case, but we will try to launch without it nonetheless.
For example, add someone from ZEA to the advisory board that you mentioned. If you feel that ZEA isn't acting right, take it to the advisory board. ZEA gets a chance to respond. If the advisory board votes against ZEA, ZEA gets publicly thrown off the advisory board.
Our TM issue is our issue, not the advisory board's issue. They are helping us form a "fair" Foundation, not advising us as to how best protect our TM.
ZEA has agreed (from the beginning) to hand over the marks at no financial gain. Once ZC provides the missing information and ZEA gets the papers, we're probably a few weeks away from wrapping this up.
Speak to your partner to see how this isn't the real holdup, but is a relatively easy excuse ZEA to lean on. In any event, just get us documents with blanks for the address if that is truly the only remaining issue...
Any niggles in this are just niggles. The deal is done and there are no disagreements on the terms. The transfer process, although complicated, is in progress. Given this, the risk of being "The Next Mambo" outweighs the perceived benefit from mudslinging.
Again, like I said, I don't believe I engaged in mudslinging, and I don't believe that this response constitutes mudslinging either. I hope you agree (after the fact) with that assessment.
participants (4)
-
Andreas Jung -
Godefroid Chapelle -
Hadar Pedhazur -
Matt Hamilton