Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> From talking to people over the weekend at the UKUUG Linux
> conference, I get the impression that there is a consensus that the
> plain swirl is nicer that the with-bottle-swirl, and that if we must
> have two logos, then it would be better to have the plain-swirl in
> the widest possible use (because it's nicer).
> If that's true, then we should be discussing it, rather than going
> to a vote
Why? This is probably as close as we'll get to fixing the horrendous
mistake that was made when we passed the "DUEL" license idea. An
"official" logo that nobody will want to use even for official
purposes is a most *excellent* idea, IMO.
I suspect, from talking to people, that most who voted for the "DUEL"
license did so simply because Wichert threw his support behind it, and
I think that many, probably most, regret their vote now, having seen
the result.
> In this case, I seen no evidence that there was a consensus for a
> vote, so I'm not convinced that there will be any validity to the
> result.
Ah, so your suggestion is that we continue discussing and debating the
idea for a few more YEARS!?! The entire logo issue has been on hold
since, what, '97? Late '96?
If we had a concensus, we wouldn't need a vote, yes? Or am I missing
something here?
> I objected because (IIRC) it was too specific, and should allow for
> other possibilities (such as alternatives that Raul could come up with).
We *already* voted on the logos. WE DO NOT NEED MORE LOGOS TO BE
SUBMITTED AT THIS POINT! That part of the voting is DONE!
> Raul followed up by saying that he agreed that discussions should
> continue on -publicily, for a final decision, and that he'd come up
> with some more versions of the logo.
We don't need to vote on this. If Wichert really wants a special
separate version of the logo for his own private use (or whatever), he
can get one from Raul, get it licensed any way he wants, and use it
for whatever purposes he wants. Raul and Wichert can donate any
graphics they want to the project, under any terms they want.
I am *perfectly* happy to have variants on THE logo be used for
specific purposes. As I said in one of my objections to the "DUEL"
license vote, this can all be done later, no problem. What we need
now is a primary logo that people can use!
What people seem to want is the swirl. Branden's vote, if it passes,
will give us the swirl. I suspect this is what everyone wants. Any
other details can wait, there is no reason to delay this *any*
further. (Which is why I ranked "Further discussion" as 3 when I
voted.)
> now we get automatically bulldozered into a vote, despite the fact
> that there seems to be no consensus that we should even have a vote.
Then propose a constitutional amendment to make sure this doesn't
happen in the future. In the meantime, however, do you *REALLY*
imagine that this vote is going to do some sort of irreparable harm to
the project?
WE ALREADY PICKED A LOGO! WE DO NOT NEED MORE SUBMISSIONS AT THIS
POINT! ESPECIALLY SINCE WE CAN ALWAYS ADD MORE LOGOS FOR SPECIAL
PURPOSES LATER!
> The trouble is, that I think the majority of the people voting for ``Swap''
> are actually voting for ``Use the swirl, and forget the bottle'', which is
> something different.
If the end result is the same, WHO CARES?
> I can see this sort of thing happening again --- we need to stop
> people proposing votes before there has been a chance to build a
> consensus (without a vote). Otherwise the minority of people who
> can be bothered to vote, will be able to push through all sorts of
> drivel.
This part I agree with. Of course, IMO, the "drivel" that was pushed
through was the "DUEL License". (Which was, IMO, such a silly notion
that I refuse to dignify it by correcting the silly spelling that
appeared on the ballot.)
Propose something that will solve this *in the future*, but in the
mean time, let us finish correcting the mistake made with the "DUEL"
license, and move on to things that actually *matter*!
> Do the right thing, and vote ``Further Discussion'' now!
Do the right thing and rank "Further discussion" THIRD now! :-p ;-)
End the misery, end the waiting for ONE BLASTED LOGO! Admit that
further refinements can be made later, at our leisure, and that we
DON'T NEED A VOTE FOR ADDITION LOGOS OR VARIANTS. GIVE US A LOGO!
NOW! (And, preferably, NOT the bottle!:-)
Followups to -vote, please.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: