Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 09:38:48AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> >
> > > My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
> > > discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
> >
> > If that were true, I might sympathize. Since it's not true, I have to
> > wonder just what you're trying to pull here. (To be kind, I'll assume
> > that this is just hyperbole.)
>
> OK, show me any discussion in the archives (URL's please) ---- I've looked,
> and didn't find any.
>
> The only replies to the proposal mail were ``seconded'' type responses, with
> no attempt to show a justification for the view.
...
> > Pretty hard to get any seconds without a discussion.... :-)
>
> saying ``seconded'' doesn't count as discussing an issue IMO.
I can't speak for the other seconds, but I did have a discussion with
Branden before I seconded it. And more specifically, I recall
discussing this during the original logo vote, in message
<19990406213754.A18757@drow.res.cmu.edu>:
> > * raul (swirl)
> > Concept: magic being release from a genie bottle.
> > Pros: simple, good associations, already in a good format (EPS)
> > Cons: none :)
>
> This is my favorite of the bunch, except for one thing - even more than
> with jeanette, I think the two logos should be switched. I think that
> the logo with an added feature should be the official one.
(Note that that message is on the non-web-archived portion of -vote)
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: