On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:57:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Here's my problem. Subverting the process by proposing something that is > tangential to ones aims seems plain wrong to me. We're not sneaky > politicians > here, so why are we acting like them ? > > You went on on to say two other things: > > 1) the logo swap was aired during the vote. > 2) the Modified swirl lost, so should be discounted > > Where was the swap discussed? > > Let me guess: On debian-vote prior to it being published on the archive > pages? > Would that also be the hiding place that was found for the definition of > ``Modified Swirl'' ? > > Is anyone else feeling just a little disenfranchised here?
[...] This was a snafu. Listmaster is looking into putting the complete archives on the web. And if any developer wants to search them, the archives in the usual location on master are complete. > As it happens, I voted for Swirl over Modified Swirl at the time, and didn't > bother to change it because I couldn't imagine that anyone was going to try > to > use the relative ordering as significant, given the cock-up of the vote page > for the bulk of the voting period. I think you are confusing what the current vote is about. The modified swirl uses the bottle on neither logo. The swapped swirl would use the bottle on the official logo. > What I don't think we have a consensus on is how precisely that logo is to be > deployed, or whether there should be two licenses, or whether one of them > should include a bottle. > > Looking at the voting record, only 21 people listed both Swirl and Dual as 1. > > These are the only people you can claim definitely wanted the bottle for some > purpose, and some of them may have actually wanted it the way it is, not > swapped. But the Dual logo vote happened first, and was already decided when the New Logo vote occurred. That's not a valid conclusion. > In fact there is a much stronger case for suggesting that we agreed that > there > should be two licenses, since at least it was completely clear what that vote > was about, and yet this latest vote seems likely to put one of those licenses > out to pasture, along with the bottle that will never be used. The bottle WILL be used. By some vendors, at least. I have every intention of using it if I ever do something deserving an Official logo. Dan /--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\ | Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/