[Freedombox-discuss] Fwd: The "new" FreedomBox logo (Was: Re: Condemos: FBx UI & Potential Distro)
+1 for new logo.
"Luka Mar?eti?" <paxcoder at gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/28/2012 10:14 PM, Mathieu Jourdan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 27 f?vrier 2012 23:41, Robert Martinez<mail at mray.de> a ?crit :
>> Find the new logo in all variants here: http://mray.de/FreedomBox-Logo.7z
>> Can somebody with access to the wiki please upload it there?
> I updated the wiki with the new logo. I also added a new page :
> https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/VisualIdentity
>
> Regards,
> Mathieu
Hello all,
I'm the author of the "gnu in a box" logo currently being used by the
FreedomBox Foundation, as you can see at
http://freedomboxfoundation.org/thanks/, and the Wikipedia description
page for the image.
I was surprised to see today that Mathieu Jourdan has deleted this logo
from the Debian wiki and replaced it with a butterfly design by Robert
Martinez.
I might be out of the loop here, but was this change discussed, and
found to be a wanted one? Also, what is the foundation's stance on it?
My patchwork might be crude, but I still prefer it to the butterfly.
With all due respect to the work that Martinez has done, the butterfly
does not aesthetically please me. To be clear, I'm aware that
improvements on my design, or even a complete redesign are a
possibility, however, I'm not sure the agreement was reached here. In
fact, I'm not sure what would constitute an agreement in a matter such
as this, since my suggestion for voting for consensus (older members
might remember) was not implemented - by me or anyone else as far as I know.
Mathieu, please revert the changes made to the wiki, unless we agree(d)
otherwise.
Thank you,
-Luka
_____________________________________________
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20120301/202ef956/attachment.html>
Reply to: