Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:

> I agree, but campaigning makes me nervous.  In binding together the issues
> of "vote this way" and "this whole vote is a sham" (or at least
> ill-conceived)

Surely, if I think the vote is ill-conceived (which I think I told you
before you posted you proposal on debian-vote) then I'm right to point
it out, and the right way for people who agree with me to vote is
``Further Discussion'' --- or am I missing something.

The reason I think it's ill-conceived is that I think that many of the
supporters of the proposal are voting for it because they want the
swirl to be generally usable, NOT because they want the bottle to be
official.  If that's the case, then that's what we should be voting on.

Of course that leaves the question of what we should do about the
official logo, so we could have rolled the whole thing into one vote
(as I was trying to suggest when you first brought this up), something
like:

 1)  Swap Logos
 2)  Use the swirl for general use,
      and tack ``official'' on it for official use.
 3)  Forget the dual License, and use the swirl
 4)  Keep them as the
 5)  Further discussion

My guess is that 2) would win, if it had been offered, and that would
have settled it once and for all, but now we're going to have to have
a ``Get rid of the Bottle'' vote --- how depressing.

> I think he's encouraging people to think sloppily about the
> issue.  I could be wrong though.  I'm hardly an unbiased participant.

I was rather hoping that people would think about the issue, at all :-)

This is probably meandering back into debian-vote territory --- these
split lists are a pain --- you have to subscribe to them all anyway if
you're hoping not to miss anything --- I apologise to -publicity
folks that don't want to see this drivel.

Cheers, Phil.