> Hi Ironic team,
> [TL;DR - we agree to Miles’ proposal for two images (one mascot, one logo)
> for different contexts. We’re looking for any final feedback on the stylized
> logo for use on the website, while the PixieBoots mascot remains yours for
> swag, etc.]
> I’m doing my best to reply to all questions on this thread as Lucas
> Please feel free to drop a note here if I’ve missed anything. I’m summarizing
> everything below:
> Design issues:
> —The bear looked angry in v1
> Answer: We removed the angry expression and replaced it with a neutral
> —The metal horns hand gesture is culturally inappropriate (rude in some
> countries) (from Ruby)
> Answer: We removed this feature and replaced it, based on the team’s input,
> with the bear holding sticks (as drumsticks)
> —What about a goat-like horned bear? (Joanna)
> Answer: We removed horned references due to the cultural reference to
> cuckolding as the Ironic team pointed out
> —The bear looks too much like a Russian meme with two hands up
> Answer: We have a face-forward bear, not a side-view bear, and only one hand
> —The bear’s face decoration looked too much like the band Kiss
> Answer: While this was intentional by the designer (for a more “metal” look),
> we removed this feature and replaced it with basic bear face coloring. Some
> folks (including Miles, Dmitry, Sam who added +1s) would like this back in.
> We’re happy to do it, we just need the team to agree on one direction.
> I'm OK either way, but liked the "KISS" style face painting.
+1 the kiss star looks cool indeed.
> —Don’t like the style (reminds Lucas of church windows)
> Answer: The design style for all of the mascots is set. It was shared in July
> when we started this project, and unfortunately the feedback window regarding
> design style has passed, as 95% of projects have now received their logos.
> —Request to abbreviate the bear so it just shows head/top of torso/hand
> holding drumsticks (from Dmitry)
> Answer: We can revisit that with the designers, however it doesn’t match the
> rest of the logo set, which is either face or full body of each mascot. We’re
> happy to try this, but as we’ve already been four rounds with the team, I’m
> soliciting ANY final feedback on this version before we finalize it.
> I'm OK with this. I think it'll be the closest we'll get to something
> everyone can agree on. +1 from me.
> Outstanding questions:
> —Can we use PixieBoots in the future?
> Answer: Absolutely. You’re welcome to produce vintage swag like shirts and
> stickers with your original logo. Any team can use their old logo in this
> way. Put another way, if you’d like to call PixieBoots your mascot, but refer
> to the Ironic logo our illustrators have created as merely a logo, that’s
> fine. And you don’t have to use this logo if you don’t want to.
> —Can we use (1) A stylized logo, matching the guidelines, for use in
> “official” settings and anywhere that it will be seen in other projects’
> logos; and (2) Our existing PixieBoots mascot, for use in “official” settings
> (laptop stickers, T-shirts, chatbots, webcomic, etc.)? (suggested by Miles)
> Answer: Great suggestion! Yes. Together with the answer above, that’s our
> intention—we’d like for you to be able to continue to use your beloved mascot
> in your own way, and we’d like the Ironic team to select some logo that is
> consistent with the rest of the community project logos, that we can use on
> official channels such as the website.
> —What will we see at the PTG?
> Answer: Out of respect for the team, we did not print stickers or signage for
> the Ironic team with any logo on it until the team reaches an agreement.
> —What license will the mascot have?
> Answer: It will be CC-BY-ND, which the foundation uses for most of our
> collateral. That allows you to use it (and we’ve provided ten versions to the
> PTLs of the projects with finalized mascots so they have a good amount of
> flexibility in logo use). It prevents, for example, a for-profit company from
> inserting its commercial logo into an element of the community-use mascots
> (which was a common request early in the design process). If you would like
> to make a derivative work, we can definitely find a way to compromise, just
> send me a note.
Personally I would prefer a license that allowed people to just create
derivatives without having to ask the foundation first because I think
that represents better a free software project. But, apparently
there's an agreement on it already, so it's fine.
> —What does the foundation want to achieve with this? (from Lucas)
> Answer: We’re trying to communicate, by way of design, that the projects are
> cohesive and connected, while still preserving (via a team-selected mascot)
> the team’s individual identity. We’d also like to help those projects that
> don’t have design resources present themselves on an even footing with the
> others. The majority of projects didn’t have their own mascots when this
> process began.
> What’s next?
> I’ll monitor this ML string for feedback. I tried to host a live call with
> your team to hash out the conflicting feedback, but nobody showed up. So
> instead, at the team’s request, I’ll rely on your thoughts via this email
> string, and do my best to move forward based on what appears to be the
> majority response.
> One final thought—please be open-minded. Working on any design project where
> 60+ teams are involved is bound to produce conflicting views. As an open
> community, I love when we embrace that, when we can get behind something for
> the good of the community, even if it isn’t 100% our own idea or preference.
> This is not an effort to “corporatize” or remove the diversity of teams. It’s
> about making representation of the projects more cohesive and connected. It’s
> also about looking out for the smaller teams in the big tent that don’t have
> the resources of larger teams. The feedback as a whole has been very
> positive. The Ironic team’s passion and engagement of this project is
> overwhelming. I’m making every effort to bring you something that you can be
> proud of in context with the other team logos.
> FWIW; this is the sort of thing we all deal with daily in code review. We
> know it's tough, and we appreciate being included in the big effort.
I echo what Jay have said here. Sorry if we pushed it a bit too hard
but we need to make sure that we end up with something that we all
Thanks Heidi for clarifying the questions!
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)