Feel free, to arrange groups, then! I do NOT want to have the responsibility for the groups. Generally I'd -0 the group-topic for I have some concerns, but I do not veto at all!
One thing is important to me: We should speed up with the decision project, to make shure, that we do not lose the logo contributers, because they might think, that we aren't interested in a logo anymore! An IMHO we need these contributers after we decided on a logo, because we might need other versions of the logo: smaller, bigger version, "build by" versions, vectoriced versions for beeing printed in mags or adds or apache-T-shirts ;-) and version I can't think of ATM! Cheers, Chris > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Christoph Wilhelms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Regarding the families of logos: > > In some cases its easy to find groups, but in some it isn't. > > I really do not > > want to decide to group them... For instance there are 2 > > similar logos with > > gray and red and a big ANT on it (from Rubus). I really like > > the first one, > > but dislike the second one. what vote should i give, if they > > are in the same > > family! Due to that reason I'd -0.5 the "families-idea" > > I do not see the problem you have with the family round of > votes. What has > been suggested is to have a first round where we pick a > family and then a > second round to pick ONE of the logos from the winning > family. A family will > be constitutes only by logos of the same submitter that have SMALL > variations between them (colors, additional text, etc). There > are several > logos that can be easily cathegorized that way.
