Brand and Governance Blur (ASF Interactive Scenario)

Browser lacks capabilities required to play.

Upgrade or switch to another browser.

Loading…

<<set $branding = 0>> /* branding = accuracy of ASF naming and marks */ <<set $independence = 0>> /* independence = self-governance, consensus, balanced relationships */ <<set $escalation = 0>> /* escalation = times IPMC needed or overused */ <<set $shortcuts = 0>> /* shortcuts = avoidance, delay, off-list handling */ <<set $steps = 0>> You are a mentor working with an incubating Apache project. Company X, the project’s main corporate sponsor, issues a press release describing the project as "an open source initiative by Company X" using ASF-style graphics and omitting "Apache Foo (incubating)". The announcement spreads quickly on social media. When mentors raise the issue, company representatives respond: "It’s perfectly fine. This helps both the company and the project." The mentors are concerned that this blurs the project’s independence and connection to the ASF. What do you do first? * [[Ask the PPMC to start a discussion on the dev@ list before acting|StartDiscussion]] * [[Contact the company privately to explain ASF branding expectations|PrivateOutreach]] * [[Post a public clarification on the dev@ list and social media|PublicCorrection]] * [[Ignore it for now; it’s just marketing|IgnoreIssue]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $independence += 1>> /* independence only: encourages community-led discussion */ You post to the project’s dev@ list: "We should clarify how ASF branding works and why accurate naming matters for independence." Several contributors express surprise: "We didn’t even know we had to use '(incubating)' everywhere." The PPMC agrees to take a closer look at the issue. How should the mentors support this? * [[Share ASF trademark and incubation disclaimer links|ShareGuidelines]] * [[Encourage the PPMC to contact Company X politely for a correction|PPMCRequest]] * [[Let the PPMC decide their next step without mentor input|StepBack]] /* independence only */ * [[Handle it privately to avoid friction|SkipToPrivate]] /* negative independence + shortcut */ * [[Defer to the next report cycle; it’s probably minor|DeferIssue]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $independence += 1>> /* independence only: mentors demonstrate restraint, PPMC owns next steps */ You decide to step back and let the PPMC handle the next steps on its own. They begin drafting a short message to Company X seeking clarification about the post. The mentors watch the thread unfold, offering context only when asked. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $independence -= 1>> /* mentors bypass open list process */ <<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* and take a process shortcut */ You move the discussion off-list to keep things simple. Other contributors later feel excluded and confused. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* policy clarity: linking to official marks and naming guidance */ You share ASF resources: - ASF Trademark and Branding Policy: https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ - Podling Naming and Disclaimers: https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#naming The PPMC thanks you for clarifying. They decide to ask Company X to correct their post and to review all materials for consistent naming. * [[Continue to the PPMC’s outreach to Company X|PPMCRequest]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* explicit request to fix naming and avoid ASF-style marks */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC leads external communication, mentors support */ The PPMC drafts a polite message to Company X: "Thank you for promoting the project. To help users understand our ASF status, could you please update your announcement to use the full name *Apache Foo (incubating)* and avoid ASF-style logos? This helps protect both the ASF and the project’s independence." The company replies: "We’ll look into it, but our campaign is already published. Changing it now would be difficult." How should the PPMC respond? * [[Suggest the required changes needed for ASF compliance and offer clarification if useful|SuggestChanges]] * [[Seek community consensus before acting|SeekConsensus]] /* independence only */ * [[Let the mentors take it up privately with the company|PrivateOutreach]] * [[Downplay the issue to keep relations smooth|DownplayIssue]] /* negative outcome */ * [[Escalate to the IPMC for further advice|EscalateIPMC]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $independence += 1>> /* independence only: consensus-building before action */ The PPMC posts back to the dev@ list: "The company says revising the press release will be difficult. Let’s discuss as a community how to proceed while keeping our independence clear." Contributors weigh options, and newer members learn ASF principles. Even if the company’s correction is delayed, the community grows stronger. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding -= 1>> /* appeasement: accuracy suffers */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* culture: sends wrong signal about governance */ <<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* avoidance contributes to repeat issues */ You tell the company "No problem, just remember next time." Branding confusion persists and volunteers feel uneasy. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* reinforces correct policy understanding in a direct channel */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* mentor-initiated, off-list first contact before PPMC reduces independence */ You and another mentor contact Company X privately, explaining that: - The ASF owns all Apache trademarks. - Podlings must use "Apache Foo (incubating)" in all public materials. - Corporate promotion should highlight participation, not control. The company representative is defensive but willing to talk: "We didn’t mean harm. We thought this was acceptable co-branding." Next step? * [[Invite them to join a short joint call with the PPMC to align messaging|JointCall]] * [[Suggest the required changes and share correct examples of ASF naming|SuggestChanges]] * [[Apologise for raising it publicly and promise to tone it down|OverApologise]] /* negative independence */ * [[Leave it for now and hope they adjust later|DeferIssue]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $independence -= 1>> /* mentors over-apologise, weakening governance signal */ The company accepts, but now treats the project as theirs to manage messaging. Some contributors raise concerns privately. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* live clarification reduces future errors */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC present and leading alignment with stakeholders */ The mentors, company representative, and PPMC meet briefly. Clear ASF identification avoids confusion about ownership. The company appreciates the clarification and agrees to review its materials. * [[Continue to suggest specific changes|SuggestChanges]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* public correction increases external accuracy */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* mentor-led public correction before PPMC reduces independence */ You post a clarification on the dev@ list and social media: "Reminder: The project’s official name is *Apache Foo (incubating)*, a community-led project at the Apache Software Foundation. Company X is one of several contributors." What tone do you take next? * [[Ask the PPMC to follow up with their own polite request for correction|PPMCRequest]] * [[Inform Company X privately afterwards to maintain good relations|PrivateOutreach]] * [[Double down publicly, criticising the company|PublicConfront]] /* negative independence */ ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* policy right */ <<set $independence -= 2>> /* culture wrong: adversarial tone hurts community maturity */ The correction sparks tension and the company withdraws support temporarily. Contributors worry about damaged relations. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* concrete text and mark corrections for compliance */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC guides what good looks like, mentors support */ You propose the specific updates required for ASF compliance: - Replace "an open source initiative by Company X" with "an open source project at the Apache Software Foundation." - Use the full name *Apache Foo (incubating).* - Remove ASF-style graphics from company-branded materials. The company agrees and updates the release. The community appreciates the correction. Optional approach? * [[Work through the PPMC to approve wording|PPMCReview]] * [[Fix it yourself and send to the company directly|MentorOverride]] /* negative independence */ * [[Escalate to IPMC|EscalateIPMC]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* technically correct content */ <<set $independence -= 1>> /* mentor takes control, bypassing community */ The company thanks you personally, but the PPMC feels sidelined. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $branding += 1>> /* audit of all public surfaces for correct names and disclaimers */ <<set $independence += 1>> /* PPMC institutionalises learning with a checklist */ The PPMC finds that the project’s website footer and README also missed the ASF disclaimer. They correct these and add a short internal checklist: "Always use the full name 'Apache Foo (incubating)' and ASF disclaimer on public pages." What next? * [[Adopt the checklist and close the loop|Debrief]] * [[Decide not to bother reviewing since it’s fixed|SkipReview]] /* shortcut */ ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* learning lost, maturity stalls */ A month later another partner repeats the same mistake. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $escalation += 1>> /* escalation is sometimes needed but carries a small cost */ The IPMC advises the PPMC to keep communication courteous but clear, reminding that the ASF’s neutral brand must not appear to be owned by any company. They provide sample wording and policy links. The company updates their materials, and the incident closes positively. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* shortcut: inaction creates external confusion and internal frustration */ A few weeks later, media outlets describe the project as "Company X’s open source product." The IPMC notices during report review and asks for clarification. The PPMC must now repair both reputation and community trust. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* shortcut: deferral allows misbranding to persist and repeat */ By the next quarter, Company X repeats the same mistake. Contributors begin to feel their volunteer work is being overshadowed by the company’s marketing. The PPMC apologises publicly and posts a clarification using ASF-compliant naming. * [[Proceed to Debrief|Debrief]] ---

<<set $total = $branding + $independence - $shortcuts - $escalation>> /* $branding = external accuracy $independence = governance maturity $shortcuts = penalties for deferral, avoidance, off-list handling $escalation = small penalty if IPMC used too soon or too often */ <<if $total >= 8>> You balanced clarity and collaboration. The project corrected branding and reinforced independence. Outcome: Strong Mentor and PPMC Alignment <<elseif $total >= 4>> The issue was fixed but with friction or delay. Compliance improved but community maturity still uneven. Outcome: Mixed Resolution <<else>> Branding confusion persisted or relations were strained. The community learned that tone and timing matter as much as policy. Outcome: Poor Resolution <</if>> ''Reflection Questions'' - How can mentors balance accuracy with diplomacy? - When does restraint build more independence than intervention? - What signals suggest IPMC escalation is warranted? <<link "Restart Scenario">><<goto "Start">><</link>>