In spending the past year learning about what all of you have been doing, the project and time well spent on working toward a greater common goal I am concerned about reading petty arguments over common branding procedures in every major company in this world. And these discussions on some of these specific logo's are maddenng to someone like myself actually spending their working day, getting paid to develop memorable and unique solutions to logo's and other various design issues.
Now whether I have or have not created a logo for this particular contest is irrevelant. I am just concerned about reading about this push if you all will for 2-3 logo's that quite honestly are not good and well just seem like they had no thought behind them.
A logo is a statement. A logo is an item with thought. And a handful of these logo's look more like an in the box concept that just steroetypes Native American's then actually helps the apache project out.
So the main question is this will there be a real vote with real time opporutnity to see results for all the logo's or just wait until #11 gets picked because well it sucks, not well thought out and a good number of you like it for some unknown, ungodly reason?
On 10/9/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> On 10/9/2005 10:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I see Dain's point and I think that we do need to clarify if the
>>> PRC's guidelines are suggestions or hard rules that they have
>>> been empowered by the corporation to enforce. We need to
>>> clarify this because it seems that the community really likes
>>> the contentious logo; they are aware of other's opinions and
>>> still they cling to their choice.
>>>
>>
>>
>> that's fine. Then we run it by the PRC and if they like it, it's
>> fine.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If these guidelines are suggestions then let's move on and
>>> install our new, butt ugly, logo. ;) The community mandate is
>>> clear. If these guidelines are hard rules that the PRC has been
>>> empowered by the corporation to enforce, then more discussion
>>> needs to be take place.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is why I suggested we get the guidelines from the PRC,
>> winnow down the set, and let the community freely decide then.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We are at a fork in the road and we, the community, need to
>>> clearly understand what the situation is.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Where is the question? Are we debating :
>>
>> a) if the PRC has the right to make such guidelines?
>>
>> b) if they are guidelines or rules?
>>
>> c) if we are choosing to ignore the guidelines for the logo that
>> people are voting for?
>>
>> d) if it's smart for us to ignore the spirit of the idea behind
>> the guidelines?
>>
>> I think that we are behind the count here, so to speak, and would
>> be well served by being extra careful.
>>
>
>
> We are not debating. I and others would like to know the answers
> to A and B.
A: What exactly constitutes proof here?
As a director last year, I voted for the resolution here :
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/
board_minutes_2004_06_23.txt
which, in part, says :
RESOLVED, that the Public Relations Committee be and hereby is
responsible for organization and oversight of efforts to handle
public relations on behalf of The Apache Software Foundation,
including trademark licensing and other issues regarding
management of the Apache brand and raising of funds
Now, we can argue about the finer points of if "management of the
apache brand" implies the whole suite, such as project branding, or
just the ASF brand in isolation, but I voted for it at the time with
the understanding that projects like Apache Geronimo are part of the
ASF, and therefore the PRC has an oversight role.
> IMHO, it is not smart for us to ignore the spirit of the idea
> behind the guidelines but, it is always best for the community to
> make an informed decision.
>
> Are you saying, "let's run the logo that the community picks by the
> PRC and if they like it as well, then why dig up A and B which is a
> contentious thing to do"? Sounds good to me. I would prefer to
> have a non-procedural consensus then to add/analyze more process
> and hierarchy.
>
I would too, but I did this to avoid us getting kicked around again
for making choice that the foundation, or parts of it, found not in
the ASFs better interest. Now we are aware of the (rules |
guidelines | heavy hand of the man), we're all professional adults
with a self-interest in finding a logo that is memorable, unique and
non-controversial, and I'm sure that we'll do the right thing. And
if we don't, we can't claim ignorance. And if someone doesn't like
it, it's a larger discussion with the PRC.
> My two cents: I think that we should follow the PRC's guidelines as
> if they were hard rules for two reasons. First, is that they seem
> to me to be good and reasonable guidelines. Second, is that it is
> their role to come up with corporate/community wide guidelines; I
> think that we should respect that.
>
Great.
Thanks
geir
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
