I'm not sure this is really a Board level decision. It seems like a simple mismatch that's easily fixed, but since you're aiming for the One True Bikeshed Color I'll roll with it.

I'd prefer Fedora $N $Product if we're going to continue along with the existing release numbers. "Fedora Server 21" sounds like we've had 21 releases of Fedora Server and we certainly haven't. We've had 21 releases of Fedora. So very infomercial like, "Fedora 21 NOW WITH SERVER!" seems more apt.

If you want to start release numbers over and call it "Fedora Server 1" then I'd be OK with that too. But I don't see that going over very well across the project, so Fedora $N $Product is my vote.

I'm in favor of Fedora $PRODUCT $N, as the goal is to have distinct products with their own identities (they already have their own logos)

About numbering, erm, no opinion.

from a branding POV if you put 21 after Fedora it's the Fedora version (Fedora $N $PRODUCT), if you put 21 after the product it's the product version (Fedora $PRODUCT $N). if the products aren't going to have the same version number / release schedule then product version makes sense. if they are always going to be synced to the same version of the base (which i thought was the case) than Fedora version makes more sense (Fedora $N $PRODUCT)

This should probably be a design team decision tho since it's a branding issue.

"This escalated quickly." Maybe this would be something to discuss on the Marketing list or for the Marketing team to weigh in on? Going straight to the board, in any event, does seem to be a bit hasty.

Replying to [comment:3 duffy]:

from a branding POV if you put 21 after Fedora it's the Fedora version (Fedora $N $PRODUCT), if you put 21 after the product it's the product version (Fedora $PRODUCT $N). if the products aren't going to have the same version number / release schedule then product version makes sense. if they are always going to be synced to the same version of the base (which i thought was the case) than Fedora version makes more sense (Fedora $N $PRODUCT)

This should probably be a design team decision tho since it's a branding issue.

Yes, I agree.

Replying to [comment:4 jzb]:

"This escalated quickly." Maybe this would be something to discuss on the Marketing list or for the Marketing team to weigh in on? Going straight to the board, in any event, does seem to be a bit hasty.

I also agree with that.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board:

The Board is also responsible for:
* Deciding issues regarding use of the Fedora trademarks

The name of the project/products is a trademark, yes? That was why I brought it to the Board. If the Board wants to delegate this decision, I have no problem with that.

Replying to [comment:2 hguemar]:

I'm in favor of Fedora $PRODUCT $N, as the goal is to have distinct products with their own identities (they already have their own logos)

About numbering, erm, no opinion.

The name is what makes them distinct, not the order it's written out. As I said, it's mostly a continuity thing. If it was "Server 1" , ok fine. But it isn't. It's the 21st release of Fedora, with Server/Workstation/Cloud products. Fedora is the umbrella project release, and we have to consider the Spins as well.

Replying to [comment:6 sgallagh]:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board:

The Board is also responsible for:
* Deciding issues regarding use of the Fedora trademarks

The name of the project/products is a trademark, yes? That was why I brought it to the Board. If the Board wants to delegate this decision, I have no problem with that.

That seems like a stretch to be honest. I personally would have preferred to see a bit more collaboration on this with Marketing first as I think it could have been resolved there.

I agree to delegate this to design and marketing teams, I don't want to hog all the phun from you guys :o)

Replying to [comment:3 duffy]:

from a branding POV if you put 21 after Fedora it's the Fedora version (Fedora $N $PRODUCT), if you put 21 after the product it's the product version (Fedora $PRODUCT $N). if the products aren't going to have the same version number / release schedule then product version makes sense. if they are always going to be synced to the same version of the base (which i thought was the case) than Fedora version makes more sense (Fedora $N $PRODUCT)

I agree with that logically but RHEL seems to place the release after the product name. Does anyone know why?

John

Replying to [comment:10 inode0]:

I agree with that logically but RHEL seems to place the release after the product name. Does anyone know why?

Barring any recent changes, RHEL subscriptions are sold by the product - a subscription entitles you to any supported version. So you never buy "RHEL 7 Server" - you buy "RHEL Server" and install version 7.

Replying to [comment:7 jwboyer]:

The name is what makes them distinct, not the order it's written out. As I said, it's mostly a continuity thing. If it was "Server 1" , ok fine. But it isn't. It's the 21st release of Fedora, with Server/Workstation/Cloud products. Fedora is the umbrella project release, and we have to consider the Spins as well.

... which are named Fedora $N $SPIN.

So for consistency and continuity, Fedora $N $PRODUCT is the right thing.

Replying to [comment:8 jwboyer]:

I personally would have preferred to see a bit more collaboration on this with Marketing first as I think it could have been resolved there.

I, too, think that we should ask marketing and design for input, but I don't think any of them are in the position to tell the WGs how to name their product.

Anyway: I first was clearly in favor of Fedora $PRODUCT $N, because we want the emphasis on the product, but the more I read and think about it, the more attractive Fedora $N $PRODUCT becomes.

Fedora $N $PRODUCT
* is consistent with other non-product deliverables
* is continuous with previous releases, both in terms of numbering the releases and naming the deliverables
* puts the emphasis on the umbrella project or the same base all products are building upon.
* therefor only logical

Still, my heart says Fedora $PRODUCT $N. The question is: Will we ever have different release cycles (as originally planned)? If yes, it will become confusing. Imagine Fedora Server 25 has is released x months after Fedora Workstation 25 and has a completely different lifecycle. If we really want to go this way, we probably want to change the numbering now and start with Fedora $PRODUCT $1. It's the first release of Fedora $PRODUCT and we cannot lover the release later.

So the more I think about it, I'm slightly in favor of Fedora $N $PRODUCT.

So this lends itself to a different question. Should we have the Products all start at 1.0 here and announce them as "built on a Fedora 21 platform" or something like that?

John - that's a good point. Branding wise RH prefers to leave the version # out in graphical logos / designs (I've been through this having produced RHEL 7-specific designs for employee swag.) The product listing in the customer portal / Satellite I think leaves the version number at the very end in the UI to make it easier to scan visually... my guess historically is maybe it was also for sorting purposes, so if you did an alpha sort the various products would be clumped together primarily by version #. But i don't know that for sure.

So I am assuming cloud images will be updated from time to time out of the regular cycle. Do they intend to reversion those intermediate releases in some way?

Replying to [comment:15 inode0]:

So I am assuming cloud images will be updated from time to time out of the regular cycle. Do they intend to reversion those intermediate releases in some way?

By date. That's because we don't intend to make them be new versions, but simply the release + all updates to that point.

I think it was decided this should go to marketing and/or design? Or was a decision reached in the ticket?

I don't think a decision was reached here. I do kind of see the point in this being a higher-level decision, as it brings together the working groups, design/branding, and marketing. and in practice, it's release engineering where a lot of these decisions end up being made, because that's where filenames hit the disk.

It should be a decision that includes those groups and not simply a top-down ruling, but we should also be accountable for making sure it happens (so, thanks for the reminder, Josh). In the new governance framework we've been working on, I know how this would go... meanwhile maybe we can ask delegates from marketing, design, and the product WGs to come up with an answer?

I'm a bit swamped right now, but I will try to gather these delegates together sometime next week after we've frozen for Beta.

So I sent this to the list. Thus far, it appears all around to be overwhelmingly preferred as Fedora $N $PRODUCT, with Matthew's proposal (below) being generally approved of (in particular by mizmo, the branding expert).

{{{
My opinion is that since we've decided on a unified lifecycle and
release process for now, we should reflect that in the names, so:

Fedora 21 Cloud
Fedora 21 Server
Fedora 21 Workstation

but that we should also allow unversioned naming:

Fedora Cloud
Fedora Server
Fedora Workstation
}}}

nods
I think this is a fair compromise (also speaking as a Cloud WG member)

I'm OK with this, but concerned about the reference to "the" list. Was this sent to marketing at all?

I did, but I think it's still in moderation on marketing.