You explained this very well, and I think I've got over the original shock, and understand the decision.
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 20:28 -0700, Troy James Sobotka wrote: > As someone who just got home to a plethora of email > in my incoming box and my mailing list box, I think > I should at least offer my vantage on this whole > process and outcome. I designed those bits that were > in Edgy. For what it is worth, I will attempt to address > the issues I have read thus far. > > On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 17:46 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > Reverting to Dapper would not be a great outcome - but it would be > > preferable to shipping with artwork that does not meet our standards. > > We've invested a huge amount of time and effort in the Edgy art > > community process, and thus far we don't have a final set of images > > that IMO cut the mustard. > > Ultimately, the "our standards" should be more spoken > as sab's. We knew this going in, and we know it going > out. > > With artwork, you can _never_ please everyone. In fact, > it is much like politics -- you hope for a rough percentage > and run with the ball on it. Ultimately, Ubuntu is different > from politics. There is _one_ person who needs to be > happy, and that is sabdfl. Whether you like it or not, > he wasn't, and the _only_ choice left was to revert as > he did not find any of the work up to his standards. > > The following hopefully explains this in full, from the > vantage of someone who participated from the onset. > > First, I became active in this because of the clear > and problematic design issues present in Ubuntu, > namely: > 1) Lack of a cohesive palette, motif, design keyword > communication. Compare the GDM to the logon splash > to the wallpaper and hopefully this is clear. If > it isn't, perhaps someone could explain better than > myself. > 2) Lack of consistency as a byproduct of number > one above. > > To draw an analogy, it was much like having several > discreet pieces of clothing that all would work fine > alone, but when put together failed to offer any > sort of cohesion. > > At the beginning of the process, there was an attempt > to lay out a formal design pattern -- moulded after > a pretty standard "target" "brainstorm" "create" "refine" > "implement" pattern. It was located here: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtworkPlan/ > > The whole point of the entire process was to have > clear and visible checkpoints for 'client' interaction > and steering -- gradually diminishing options and > working towards a directed goal. > > Unfortunately, _all_ of the checkpoints were rather > underutilized. This was probably the byproduct of > sab's massively busy schedule. He is a pretty busy > guy with this tidal wave called Ubuntu... > > This left Frank Schoep, our Artist in Chief, on his own > to do the filtering and refining. He did a _truly_ > amazing job trying to juggle all of the development > issues and artwork aspects, and, despite the outcome, > has proved himself a very valuable asset to the > Ubuntu project, imho. > > Certain looser design criteria were made clear > (read the specifications for further information), > and development proceeded as best as possible given > the instructions. > > Unfortunately, there was zero result to develop > a palette from the "ponder / brainstorm." There > were zero motifs granted. Etc. This led to a very > difficult design phase. Frank had to hobble along. > > Jump to freeze times. Perhaps because artwork has not > been treated in a development fashion before, when the time > came to freeze elements, Frank had to use his judgement > and rolled with what he felt were the best options > laid out before him. Enter the newer Edgy work. > > Bear in mind that at this point, Ubuntu is NOT like the > other *buntu's. Ubuntu is under STRICT watch by sab > himself -- and hopefully we can all appreciate that. > Ubuntu's success thus far has probably largely been > because of his vision. > > What became clearer fact was what the goal of the > effort was. Fundamentally, there should have been > more mimesis on the part of the team, as opposed to > believing that there was room for design beyond the > 6.06 work. If you follow the current product of the > conference calling between himself and a few others, > you will quickly see what his ideas for change were. > > Unfortunately, we failed to locate these changes at > the onset. > > On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 19:12 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > If you read that document (have you?) you'll see that the art team > > leads explicitly set their own, personalised deadlines that are in > > sync with those of the distro. It's not /the same/ it's an appropriate > > set of deadlines that were a good plan - and it was not followed. > > Actually, the deadlines were set in direct accordance with > the schedule released at Paris. It would have been foolish > to _not_ do this. In addition to this, the freeze dates > have been relatively clear all along. I don't think fundamentally > this had _anything_ to do with the outcome. > > On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 18:53 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > No - unprofessional is missing all the agreed dates, and not pulling > > together as a team but instead having too many people pulling in too > > many directions. > > > > Before you react - consider for a moment that the REST of the > > distribution does not run that way. It could never be the tight, > > focused thing that it is if it did. It's up to the art team to rise to > > the level of the rest of the distro, not simply to assume that release > > management processes apply less strictly in the artwork department. > > Not quite. The fundamental issue at hand > was a distinct lack of _concrete_ direction that were met > in accordance with the above schedule checkpoints. Perhaps > there was a view that 'quashing' a given direction would have > disappointed the community, but in essence, it was exactly > what the design plan was developed to provide. > > I have attached the byproduct of countless hours of last minute > tweaks and changes based on his personal guidance for those > that missed the links / images. > > On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 19:12 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > But design is about visual and spatial engineering - creating things > > that are both beautiful and functional. We CAN expect design to be a > > disciplined professional process. > > Reverting to Dapper's work solves this. It is both beautiful > and functional. Again, we must accept that ultimately the > definitions of "beautiful and functional" are defined by > Mr. Shuttleworth's aesthetic. He has provided his own > money to develop Ubuntu. He has dedicated a huge amount > of time to make Ubuntu what it is. He is why we are even > discussing this. > > Dapper is excellence in design for him. He has spent > his own money and time developing it. Please appreciate > that. > > It has been a wonderful journey... > > Sincerely, > TJS > > PS: The design that ended up being in there has > very little to do with my personal aesthetic. I > simply tried to take what I believed Ubuntu was > based on its connotations, existing loose brown > tone, and guesswork to devise _something_ that > felt Ubuntu. Again, without a clear design specification, > colour palette, etc., it was all guesswork. > Aesthetics aside, the design attempted to meet > the loose specifications from the onset _and_ > correct some of the issues that I _personally_ > thought were present in Ubuntu's look. > > For all of the countless requests I have in my > inbox, you can locate the most updated versions > of the effort at the _bottom_ of the page. They > are slightly different from what was in Edgy, but > alas, we know the history: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtworkPlan/Produce/Incoming/CurrentDefault > > > -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
