Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
Chris Waters <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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?
Yes, you are. The situation has changed. We now have a logo, we
voted on that, and I'm certainly not trying to change that fact.
If you want to be pedantic this vote is actually an attempt to reverse
the previous logo vote, since we voted against the swirl as the
free-use logo when ``Modified Swirl'' failed to win.
My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
If it had been discussed, I think we could have reached a consensus
without a vote. At least if it had finally required a vote, then the
question being voted on might actually have addressed the problem,
rather than approaching it from an obtuse angle.
Just because something isn't a technical issue, doesn't mean that it
is inconceivable that someone could come up with a convincing enough
argument to persuade people about it.
P.S. I must say, it was deeply embarrassing having to explain at the
UKUUG Linux'99 conference, that I could not actually sell Debian
T-Shirts to the people that wanted to buy them, because the license
probably meant that only developers on official business were allowed
to wear them. We need to sort this out, just not this way.