Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
> Philip Hands <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Well, quite. If people had left it alone, I probably would have too, at least
until last weekend when I found myself explaining to several people that I
couldn't sell them a swirl T-Shirt, because they were licensed in a way that
probably meant that only developers, on official business can wear them :-(
(we were giving away CDs at the time, which seems sort of official)
> (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.)
Here's my problem. Subverting the process by proposing something that is
tangential to ones aims seems plain wrong to me. We're not sneaky politicians
here, so why are we acting like them ?
You went on on to say two other things:
1) the logo swap was aired during the vote.
2) the Modified swirl lost, so should be discounted
Where was the swap discussed?
Let me guess: On debian-vote prior to it being published on the archive pages?
Would that also be the hiding place that was found for the definition of
``Modified Swirl'' ?
Is anyone else feeling just a little disenfranchised here?
To quote one of the messages that did actually make it onto the web pages
(after I'd voted BTW), written by Darren O. Benham:
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 07:06:15PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> [an explanation of what Modified Switl was, deleted for brevity]
> I have no idea how many developers understood this when voting -- I
> certainly didn't without checking the -vote archives.
Actually, I was told before the vote took place that the pages were being
archived so I was relying on that for clarification. I wasn't aware until
recently that the archives WERENOT up. That has been fixed. I saw some
may archives today.
That pretty neatly describes the situation I was in at the time.
I've had a couple of mails today from people who were unaware that a vote was
on, until I started making waves on -devel. This really isn't good.
Swirl had pretty much won when I voted IIRC (which looking at my mail was 28
May 1999) whereas the description of what Modified Swirl was didn't appear on
the vote page until some time later. How can you draw any conclusion from the
fact that Swirl got more votes in these circumstances?
As it happens, I voted for Swirl over Modified Swirl at the time, and didn't
bother to change it because I couldn't imagine that anyone was going to try to
use the relative ordering as significant, given the cock-up of the vote page
for the bulk of the voting period.
Interestingly, the fact that we were voting on a swapable bottle when we voted
swirl, is still not mentioned on that page. Perhaps someone should add this
now in order to legitimise the latest vote.
To reinforce that point, a quote from joey on the same day:
Looking at the current state, the logos named SWIRL will win, but
these are two logos x 2, so we have four. Err, which swirl is
will it be? Or do we need to vote again if bottle only or not, if
swirl plus bottle, or swirl only.
Or am I going crazy?
BTW Please don't accuse me of trying to restart the logo vote. I'm pretty
certain there is a consensus for the swirl, and I don't want that to change.
What I don't think we have a consensus on is how precisely that logo is to be
deployed, or whether there should be two licenses, or whether one of them
should include a bottle.
Looking at the voting record, only 21 people listed both Swirl and Dual as 1.
These are the only people you can claim definitely wanted the bottle for some
purpose, and some of them may have actually wanted it the way it is, not
In fact there is a much stronger case for suggesting that we agreed that there
should be two licenses, since at least it was completely clear what that vote
was about, and yet this latest vote seems likely to put one of those licenses
out to pasture, along with the bottle that will never be used.
Is this the hidden agenda that I was smelling ?