RealGrouchy (CAM) schreef:
</ignore flaming>
LOL
The most important rule in communicating over the internet is to be
very clear. If someone else is unclear, ask for clarification. If
you're going to go ahead and assume the meaning of what they said,
ALWAYS assume the BEST.
Steven made a mistake by using a wonderfully poetic, but equally
unclear and explosive, way of communicating. Chad also did wrong by
turning it into a flame war. I've been on here for two days, and
already my inbox has been filled with lots of discussion, mainly on
stuff that I'm not familiar with, and mostly on stuff that has more to
do with internal procedures than with marketing OOo. If the list
doesn't have to see it, don't send it to the entire list. More lists
is _not_ a solution.
I would like to weigh in on the whole "logo" controversy:
- I believe that OOo should have a consistent look accross all of the
OFFICIAL places that it uses its logos (Openoffice.org, oooforum.com,
etc.). This is what is meant by consistency. If someone wants to print
off a CD and stick a label on it, they can use a crayon for all I
care. I believe that the best intent of the logo is "we will mandate
this for our own use, and encourage it for others". That doesn't mean
we can't change it in the future if someone comes up with a better
one.
- Making a single suite of logos that we use (from splash screen, to
box packaging, to CD labels, CD packaging, and even the web icons) and
making it available as a package will definitely make our preferred
logos easier for others to adopt. If some would like changes to be
made, it would be better on all sides if we are open to people
suggesting we modify the suite of logos (inclusive), than to force
them to fork (exclusive). I.e., if we decide on this logo, we're
deciding for now, not forever!
- Right now, I'm looking at three different OOo icons on my screen,
the birds are flying at different angles in each one, they all have
different colour schemes, and they are all diferent from the OEM logo
now under consideration.
- But right now, we want to make an OEM logo, and we currently don't
have one. Let's make one, independent of what all the other logos look
like, so that we can move on to marketing and shipping this sticker.
- When that's done and we have time to make a consistent look for all
icons, we can change them then.
Thank you for this contribution. here you touch exactly the problem that
keeps everyone busy to react to people who do not find what they are
looking for because it is not clear what exists, what has to be done.
These logo's exist and there is even a Style guide (though still in
progress). Soving the problem as you define above is nice, and somewhat
what I tried to do. Now it resides in the same disorganised way to
newbies (organised chaos to others) in the wiki. I support the idea to
use the wiki for developping processes only and once a decission is
made, it should be moved to a clear and well structured website.
The OEM label has been a Art project issue for some time and has
reached the point where art has presented some poposals to be voted on
the marketing dev list. IMHO, once decided, it should be moven to a
webpage in a website that holds all but official voted or decided logo,
marketing material.
I love the idea of packages. These could be presented to Native language
projects. They could dontribute to translating them and the art project
could implement the translations and bundle new packages. I like the
track you are riding on :)
As a new Marketing volunteer, I have had to fight through a lot of
technical jungles and read a lot of lists of procedure just to get
involved. We should simplify and clarify the instructions for getting
involved so that a person doesn't have to be as hardcore as I am to
not get turned off by these obstacles!
Indeed :) same here. I forced myselve to retry several times. This
indicates something... (i keep repeating myselve I know...)
Use of technology is important to this. On a wiki, it should be easy
to look at what has been said and decided, what there is to do, and do
it. On a mailing list, there should be more sitting back and seeing
how things work, since it is difficult/not possible to look through
the archives and parse what information is important (on a wiki,
presumably the important information is the stuff that stays up).
+1
As I suggested before:
- Wiki should be for idea development
+1
- Mailing list should be fore discussion and decision making*
+1
- Website should be for finished product.
This kind of website has been a discussion for some time, so it seems
and I brought it up when I started, but it seems to be countered every time.
I see one solution: Anyone in for a go on a marketing website, I'll
provide hosting, PHP4, MySQL. I'll do what some say I don't. I'll just
do it.
As for the project leaders (the initial reason for this debate)... If
you're presenting a case, support it. The onus is on you to present
support for your argument, not on others to "read back". I for one, am
not able to "read back", and even if I could, would not waste my time
in doing to.
If you're communicating online, if someone offends you, suck it down
and be polite. As Mark Twain said, "Don't answer a fool according to
his folly, or you will be like him yourself."
*Lastly, this whole process confuses me. Obviously, I have shown that
I am a fan of Wikis. However, this group has historically done most of
its work on this list. I think it would be easier to keep track of
"vote tallies" and people's opinions if they were taken on the wiki.
But that's just me.
Thanks for your contribution,
Steven P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
