On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 22:36 +0000, John McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:19 +0100, Steven Pauwels wrote: > [snip] > > I think that if someone has a violent objection to the label that the > > community chooses by vote, he should start his own OOo distribution. It > > is completely respectless to the efforts put in by the art project, and > > the decission made by the marketing project members, to use another. > > This is one of the reasons people find it difficult to work for OOo > > marketing. For Gods sake... make up your minds... > > You vote but nevertheless we should use them all... this is > > contra-productive and completely demotivating. > > It's not intended to be. We're an open-source project, not a monopoly > supplier - we can't say "You must put this 'Fred Computers Inc > recommends OpenOffice.org' logo on every advert or we'll cut you off our > preferred price plan" > > > John... Take your co-leads responsability to actually lead. > > We can only lead by the excellence of what we do. If we provide world > class artwork, why would anyone choose *not* to use it?
Because someone else produces some different but worldclass artwork? While its not possible to mandate a particular solution, it seems sensible to reduce ambiguity by agreeing and presenting just one. I'd say that having several would be more likely to encourage people to do their own because if there are several anyway, why not another one? -- Ian Lynch www.theINGOTs.org www.opendocumentfellowship.org www.schoolforge.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
