On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 06:23:21PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> writes: > > > [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>] > > I don't know how controversial this suggestion will be, but I propose that > > the official version of the new logo be the one with the bottle in it. > > What is the status of the logos, given that we've just voted on them ? > > If they're written in stone, then a proposal to change them is pointless. > > If they're not, then I suggest that instead of proposing a swap, you > (or I, if you prefer) call for a second round of logo voting. The > difference being that all submissions have to be recognisable > variations on the swirl. My reasoning, which many people may not share, was that when we were voting on the logo, we were voting on them as distinct conceptual ideas from each other. Therefore, such minutae as color palette, image file format, resolution, etc., were not set in stone in the logos for which we voted. Obviously we want a vector-format version of the approved logo, we want versions of it scaled to all kinds of sized for use as icons or web buttons, and so forth. I reasoned that a switcheroo on the open and official versions is important enough to call for a general resolution (though it need not go to a vote if it's insufficiently controversial), but I don't think it changes the conceptual thrust of the logo enough to merit yet another general logo vote, with "SWIRL" competing against "SWITCHED swirl". Frankly, I think the "MODIFIED swirl" was an ill-considered proposal, as it was insufficiently distinct from the main swirl to really be considered a separate option. All the other logos were strongly distinct from each other. Ants, seal, DG, the old logo, and the fixed chicken were all blatantly differentiable under even the most careless inspection. But the "MODIFIED swirl" issue is water under the bridge now. I do believe that since we have reached a consensus on both the smoky swirl and the genie bottle as components of the new Debian logo, we should have some latitude with our utlization of those elements. Yes, we need to finalize the open and official logos. But in my opinion my proposal is not drastic enough that it perverts the nature of the logo that has been selected. You may, of course, disagree. That is why I brought this up for discussion. I want to know what other people think. > That would allow you to make the swapped logos one of the options, but > it would also allow the MODIFIED_SWIRL logo to be rendered, and voted > on (I don't think it got a fair crack of the whip in the previous > vote), and if someone else can come up with a better way of indicating > official-ness, or can slightly tweak the swirl itself, in a way that > people generally prefer, then that would be fine. MODIFIED swirl may not have gotten a fair crack of the whip, but that's because none of its advocates wanted to invest the time or the energy in presenting it in a visual format for equal weighing against the others. They had plenty of time. I don't think that's a reason to throw out the previous vote. In fact we've heard plenty of people complain about the original SWIRL, and I suspect that some folks are looking for excuses to call yet another logo vote because it didn't turn out the way they wanted. DG had a very good chance of winning with MODIFIED sucking away some of SWIRL's support (think Bush/Clinton/Perot '92, in which supporters of Ross Perot pulled away Republican votes more than Democratic ones, and thus undermined Bush enough to let Clinton win), and yet SWIRL won anyway. I think that's a pretty strong endorsement of the winner. > The other thing is that at some point we need to draw a line under the > logo issue, and decide that it's no longer open to discussion. > Otherwise we'll get the ``I think XYZ would make a better Debian > Logo'' proposal every six months, which I can do without. We're engaged in the finalization process now. That is what my proposal is attempting to address. As I said above, I didn't raise this earlier because I don't regard my idea as very conceptually distinct from Raul's, and I thought it would have cluttered the voting. We didn't need two, let alone three, variations on the same theme. If the consensus of the development community is strongly aligned with you, then I'm not going to cry about it. I made my decision about when to raise the proposal, and I'm willing to accept its rejection. -- G. Branden Robinson | Murphy's Guide to Science: Debian GNU/Linux | If it's green or squirms, it's biology. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | If it stinks, it's chemistry. cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | If it doesn't work, it's physics.
Attachment:
pgpQUvWUVipaU.pgp
Description: PGP signature