Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote: > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 12:02:46PM -0700, Darren.Reed at sun.com wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>> There have been lots of ideas and rationales about what is >>> good or bad, and when someone said "shark" (specifically >>> >> >> And this same damned discussion has been going for almost 3 years now. >> I'm wholly supportive of the Advocacy Group's efforts to promote >> OpenSolaris and if they believe a mascot is an important aspect of >> that then I wish them the best of success with it. But for the sake >> of those of us who don't care to see hundreds of messages about the >> pros and cons of this or that mascot or the dire need for more >> artwork, please keep this topic off ogb-discuss >> > > Where's the baseball bat....not the least of which is to > beat myself for responding to an email from you...
This tone is unfortunate. > The original email was NOT a call for discussion about > what the mascot should OR should not be... Ok. My mistake. Sorry. I thought it was a good opportunity to discuss something interesting and something that we'll eventually need to address -- logos, graphics, new text to describe the emerging community. > It was a call to action that something needs to be thought > about and put in motion. And we are. > It was a draft schedule for someone to consider and hopefully > put some people in motion towards deciding "we need to get > there, and to do that we need to go along path X." > > Nowhere did my original email say "now lets start discussing > what our mascot should be." > > Go and reread it. > > Now if the response of the OGB is to say "advocacy, go and > look at this and come back with a plan", great, but so far > the OGB has *NOT* responded and more pointedly, Steve Lau > has since said that his email was *his personal opinion*, > not that of the OGB. The reason I addressed this to the > OGB is because it is a larger issue than just "advocacy", > it is also identity and creating a mark. > > And at some point people such as yourself should step back > and try to see the forest, not just the trees. I support Keith's view on this and Steve's as well. Jim -- Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
