[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:

> The only replies to the proposal mail were ``seconded'' type
> responses, with no attempt to show a justification for the view.

On -vote yes, because most of the seconders had already posted
comments on -devel.  All the discussion seems to have been on -devel,
in fact.  (You'll have to check the archives on master if you don't
believe me, because the stuff on the web page is woefully behind.)

Edward Betts said: "the swirl would work better in an icon".

You had a fairly extensive reply, to which Branden replied at some

Steve Greenland said it had "bugged" him that "the official was
simpler than the unofficial", and supported the swap.

Joseph Carter said ... er, "seconded".   (You win this one.)  :-)

Mark Eichman included some comments about the imagery and supported
the swap.

Marcelo E. Magallon had some fairly extensive comments, pro and con.

Darren Benham and Joey Hess responded to some of Marcelo's points.

And Fabien Ninoles said he preferred to have the bottle on the
official image (he *thought* he was opposing the swap, but obviously,
he was supporting it).

I don't know what sort of "justification" you're looking for here.
People mostly thought it was a good idea, and said go for it.  Some
time passed, and it remained fairly non-controversial, and so it went
up for a vote.

Do we need to generate great, long, philosophical treatises each time
someone has a simple, non-controversial suggestion?

> The only discussion that I'm aware of was a very brief exchange
> between me and Branden, where I suggested that the question was too
> narrow.

Yes, I saw that (if you mean your post on -devel), and I quite
*deliberately* ignored you, hoping you'd come to your senses and be
quiet.  (Soliciting new variants on the swirl logo?  My GOD man!)  And
frankly, I suspect most people felt the same way I did.  Branden's
proposal was ALMOST too much in itself, and the LAST thing I or anyone
wanted was to WIDEN the debate!

This has all been going on for FAR TOO LONG!  Forgive my excessive use
of caps, but I think that most of us are SICK of endless debates about
what on earth we should have for a logo, and how it should be licensed,
and how it should smell.  The last vote SHOULD have settled it for
ONCE AND FOR ALL, and it's only by the faintest margin that Branden
didn't get beat up for dragging this out even further.

And now you think WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT ENOUGH??  We have been
DISCUSSING IT FOR AGES!!!  There are MUCH more important things in the
world than the freakin' logo.  I have no idea why you want to extend
the debate.  I suspect you'll have to debate by yourself, for the most
part, if you really want a debate.

But your motives seem good, so I'm not going to beat you up about this
any more.  Quite frankly, I am tired of the whole issue.  Soon the
vote will be over, and *no matter what the outcome*, we'll have a
logo, and I really don't care which one.  And if you want to try to
re-open the debate at that point, I'll be more than happy to ignore
you completely.  I suspect that most developers will join me in that.

Note that this vote is still struggling to get a quorum.  I think that
says more than any words of mine can about just how much people simply

But maybe, just maybe, if you try *really* hard, you can drag this
whole process out for a FEW MORE YEARS!  Wouldn't *that* be fun? :-)

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: