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

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:

> I'll leave you with a fairly simple question:

>   I like the swirl logo, and want it to be widely used.
>   I don't like the bottle logo, and don't want it as our official logo.
>   How should I vote ?

AH!  Now I understand where you're coming from.  And I sympathize, I
do, but the time for that option was during the main logo vote.  The
Modified Swirl did NOT win, and I'm afraid you may just have to learn
to live with that.  Personally, I don't mind the bottle; I'd just
rather have the swirl be the commonly used (Open Use) logo.

At this point, I *highly* recommend that you vote FOR the swap.  It's
not going to provide exactly what you want, but it's probably as close
you'll get at this late date.  If No or Further Discussion wins, we'll
probably be stuck with the bottle for all eternity, given how few
people have bothered to vote on *this* proposal.

(I don't know if the details should be discussed publicly, but I can
tell you that I have strong reason to believe that the bottle may not
be used much if it *does* become the official logo.  So you may *well*
get your wish *if* the swap passes.)

The idea of a swap was even discussed during the original logo vote,
and many people seemed to like the idea, so it was already a familiar
notion, and therefore non-controversial when Branden proposed it.
Otherwise, I suspect, people would have objected in the strongest
terms.  As, I suspect, they will to any suggestion that we should
actually *have* further discussion.

BTW, I should mention: there are seventy-three valid votes received at
the moment, but only 66 for the swap, and the "quorum" turns out not
to be for total votes, but for votes-for-one-proposal, so Further
Discussion is *still* winning by default -- Swap needs two more votes
to pass.

> Can we expect the logo4 vote to be about getting rid of the bottle ?

You can propose it if you like, you *may* even be able to bring it to
a vote, but I suspect that you're going to have a *very* difficult
time getting a quorum, let alone passing.  And you'll anger all the
people who *like* the bottle, and voted for SWIRL over MODIFIED for
that very reason.  And you'll anger people like me who'll see it as an
attempt to subvert the previous vote. (Branden's proposal wasn't the
target of this anger because the idea had been discussed for quite a

I think that anyone who proposes a logo4 vote had better have a) a
very thick skin, and b) a big enough mailbox to hold a *whole* lot of
flames and hate mail!  :-)

> P.S.  Just in case anyone's interested in where I've been coming from,
> a few of clarifications:

> on my initial suggestion that we open up the vote for swirl alternatives:

>   I was actually after an opportunity to vote for ``Modified Swirl'',
>   but didn't want to limit it to that if someone managed to come up with an
>   even better idea --- if there's a better idea, we should use it.

Again, I sympathize, but I think the time for that has passed.  A day
late and a dollar short.

> on my problems with the legitimacy of the current vote:

>   It relies on the authority of the previous votes for it's selection
>   of the two logos, but it rejects the authority of the previous logo
>   vote

If the idea hadn't been discussed during the previous vote, I would
agree with you, and would oppose *any* attempt to drag this out
further.  However, it *was* discussed previously, many of us knew that
this would probably come up and were willing (barely) to allow it.

> on the assumption that I want to discuss it ad infinitum:

>   I'd rather that we made sure that there was no room for anyone to
>   claim that there is something wrong with this vote, so that the
>   discussion gets settled once and for all.  We're already voting
>   once more than we should have been.

Understood and agreed.  But here we are, and I think it's probably
wisest to try to make the best of it at this point.  And I think a FOR
vote on the swap is probably the way to do that.

As for the overall issue of *why* it's taken us three votes to arrive
at a point where we *could* have gotten in one, well, I see two
possible factors:  one) the voting procedure is still fairly new, and
we're working out the kinks, and two) it's quite possible that the
discussion period is not long enough (or doesn't allow enough range).

But this last is something to think about for the future.  The topic
of the logo *has* been beaten to death, and if we don't have a
consensus now, well, then I suspect we never will.

Some comment about "herding cats" is probably appropriate here.  :-)

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: