Seeking approval to use the Node.js logo on the WinterCG website

[jasnell]

WinterCG is a W3C Community Group that actively seeks cooperation and discussions among numerous non-browser runtimes (like Node.js, deno, bun, and others). The website (https://wintercg.org) currently displays the logos of various projects and companies that are supportive of the work being done by the WinterCG. Given that there have been multiple Node.js core contributors involved in the Community Group, and given that the Community Group seeks to help advocate on behalf of Node.js in various standards bodies (such as Ecma, WHATWG, etc) I would like to request approval from the project to display the Node.js logo with the others on the website.

What does displaying the logo mean?

Good question: it is simply an indication that the work of the community group is endorsed by the project. It implies no obligation at all to Node.js itself.

While at some point in the not too distant future WinterCG may define formal "compliance guidelines" for specs such as the Minimim Common API, it does not do so currently, which means there's no official definition of "WinterCG-Compliance". And even if there were, it would be entirely opt-in/optional for any particular runtime. This means effectively that displaying the logo on the website could never be interpreted as meaning "Node.js is expected to be in compliance with any WinterCG document or specification". I think this is important to clarify as I want to avoid any confusion.

Fundamentally deciding use of the logo is a function of the @nodejs/tsc, but I wanted to open the issue here in the main repo in case there were any objections or concerns from the main body of @nodejs/collaborators.

[jasnell]

/cc'ing @littledan from bloomberg who can probably explain a bit about why Bloomberg agreed to list it's logo for additional context.

[ShogunPanda]

Huge +1 here, for what it's worth.

[joyeecheung]

For context, notes from the collaborator meeting at NodeConfEU (not very accurate, but worth linking for transparency ) https://hackmd.io/Jfav9baTRwaXL_KkF_wekw

[bengl]

I'm +1 on indicating endorsement, but the list of logos appears to imply something else. "The work of WinterCG is supported by:" reads to me like "employees of these companies are paid, at least in part, to work on WinterCG", particularly since all of the currently listed logos are companies. Considering recent public confusion on how work on Node.js is funded, I think it's worth clarifying in the text on that web page, at least at the point in time that the Node.js logo is included. Perhaps it can be replaced with "Representatives of the following companies and projects work on WinterCG:", or "These companies and OSS projects are involved with WinterCG:", or something else to add clarity. Or even something explicitly indicating the intended endorsement.

Please feel free to ignore this concern if no one else finds the current language confusing 😄.

[littledan]

Bloomberg has been a member of WinterCG since its founding, and we have been trying to help the group progress and meet its goals, which are in common with our needs. No one at Bloomberg has “participating in WinterCG” as their main job, and Bloomberg does not ship a “WinterCG-compliant” JS runtime. I think Node.js’s participation has been analogous to ours, in a way.

I like @bengl ’s idea to tweak the wording on the WinterCG page. We could say “WinterCG includes participants from:” to be the weakest possible wording. In the end, people will mostly look at the logos and ignore the words (evidence: nobody remembered Bloomberg was a founding member, even though this was listed in all blog posts, since our name was initially missing from the set of logos).

[joyeecheung]

“WinterCG includes participants from:” also sounds the least ambiguous to me.

[jasnell]

We can absolutely tweak /improve the language on the wintercg page in conjunction with adding the logo

[joyeecheung]

Looks like the text has already been changed on the website to “WinterCG includes participants from:”

[mhdawson]

With the change that @bengl suggested and which was already made on the page reference I'm +1 as well. It seems to reflect the reality that we have people from the Node.js project involved.

I think it does imply that the project believes the effort/work of the WinterCG is good for the ecosystem and that as a project we do not object to being associated with it. I think this issue is the way to agree on that. I think a +1 to displaying the logo should imply that we are confortable with the Node.js project being associated with the WinterCG and the credibility that will add to the effort.

One question might if there is a threshold that we should maintain. For example I could probalby name a few people that I know are participating, if that dropped to 0 should the logo be removed? Should we capture somewhere who is participating?

[Trott]

The logo is actually the intellectual property of the Foundation, is it not? If so, then I think you need their approval, not the TSC's, although getting the TSC's is certainly a kind and thoughtful thing to do anyway!

[jasnell]

If I go ask the Foundation the first thing they are going to do is ask what the project/TSC thinks.

/cc @mcollina ... since we'll also need to do this tho :-)

[jasnell]

@mhdawson

Should we capture somewhere who is participating?

How about a creating a @nodejs/wintercg team? If the membership of that drops to 0, then we know.

[ovflowd]

@mhdawson

Should we capture somewhere who is participating?

How about a creating a @nodejs/wintercg team? If the membership of that drops to 0, then we know.

Isn't the @nodejs/web-standards team exactly for that?

[jasnell]

No, somewhat overlapping domains but different purpose, and not everyone in the web-standards team is participating in wintercg currently.

[mhdawson]

How about a creating a @nodejs/wintercg team? If the membership of that drops to 0, then we know.

That sounds resonable to me.

[jasnell]

I've created the @nodejs/wintercg team and invited a range of folks from Node.js who I know are in the matrix channel already.

[jasnell]

@mcollina ... are you able to clarify what, if any, additional permission is needed from the Foundation to use the logo?

[mcollina]

Here is a link to our trademark policy https://openjsf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2021/01/OpenJS-Foundation-Trademark-Policy-2021-01-12.docx.pdf.

TL;DR drop an email to info@openjsf.org, which goes into @rginn inbox ;). If everything checks out, she would ask to the TSC to confirm, so let's approve it in one of our next meetings.

[mhdawson]

Discussed in meeting today, since there are no objections and we've raised awareness in several TSC meetings, removing from agenda.

[jasnell]

Woo! Thank you all. I'll be opening the PR to get the logo added to the website later today.