On Oct 8, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Oct 8, 2005, at 8:47 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Lets cut to the root of it - Is your problem with having to work
within the guidelines from the PRC, or is there some particular
problem with the guidelines themselves? I'm sure that if it's the
latter, any reasonable suggestion, change or addition will be
welcomed.
Well cutting to the chase, I do have a problem with the
guidelines. Everyone has an opinion on the logo, but the opinion
of the folks involved in the PRC seem to cary veto power. It is
clear that the PRC is simply trying to avoid potential future
problems, and I believe that it is important for the members of the
Geronimo community to hear the concerns of the PRC. I expect the
Geronimo community should take this into account when selecting a
logo, but I don't think that anyone other then the Geronimo
community should be choosing the logo.
The big problem here is the most popular logo is #11, and there are
a few outsiders that don't like this. Instead of them coming to
the community and trying to convince the community that this is a
bad choice, the PRC simply issues a mandate, and that grates on
me. I say, if you want to be involved in the Geronimo logo process
come here and discuss it, otherwise keep your opinions to your self.
First, don't forget that this is an Apache project, and therefore we
have to abide by Apache Foundation guidelines for things.
Second, I think you are leaping to conclusions. If there is a logo
that we feel may not satisfy the guidelines but feel is ok, we should
probably just ask the PRC.
If this is an official mandate of the board then we must accept it,
but I'm not happy about it, which is why I feel it is critical to
determine if this is a mandate of the board. Did the board give
the PRC rule making authority over all imagery at Apache?
Yes.
Did the board specifically direct the PRC to create logo guidelines?
No, but that's utterly irrelevant. I asked the PRC to create
guidelines, because our name selection was and is controversial, and
there's absolutely no reason to further antagonize members of the
Apache community with a logo decision along the same lines. Further,
our name and imagery will be used far and wide in the industry, and
very prominently, and I thought that was another excellent reason.
Has the Board officially accepted these guidelines or is this still
a rough draft?
Again, utterly irrelevant, as the board has officially delegated
responsibility for branding and imaging to the PRC, and doesn't need
to review every decision. If there are issues with the guidelines,
the PRC will welcome our feedback. If we're not satisfied, we can
appeal to the board, but I'm not sure what we'd be trying to achieve
at that point.
I personally will be more comfortable if we knew exactly where
these guidelines stand within Apache.
I hope it's clear now.
BTW, I personally think #11 is tacky, but not offensive, and am
fine to have it in the contest, but personally #9 to win.
If we think that we should go to the PRC about #11 and ask, lets do
that. Otherwise, lets move on.
geir
Out of curiosity, if the guidelines are actually requirements,
are existing logos subject to the requirements or are they
grandfathered in?
I'm assuming that they are grandfathered in, but I'm not really
worried about it.
I am interested because if they intend to force other projects to
change their logos, then we should just sit back and wait for the
guidelines to change :)
-dain
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
