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

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:57:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> 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?


This was a snafu.  Listmaster is looking into putting the complete
archives on the web.  And if any developer wants to search them, the
archives in the usual location on master are complete.

> 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.

I think you are confusing what the current vote is about.  The modified
swirl uses the bottle on neither logo.  The swapped swirl would use the
bottle on the official logo.

> 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 
> swapped.

But the Dual logo vote happened first, and was already decided when the
New Logo vote occurred.  That's not a valid conclusion.

> 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.

The bottle WILL be used.  By some vendors, at least.  I have every
intention of using it if I ever do something deserving an Official


/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/

Reply to: