Hi Dan, I’m hoping these answers help, and I’m open to continuing the conversation if you’d like.
> 6 months or so ago we were presented with a new owl from the > foundation... which had almost none of the same qualities as the > original. Many of us took a survey about that and provided feedback, > but I haven't found anyone who was really happy with it. Consensus was > we liked the originals. Sometimes sticking with your roots is a good > thing. > You’re right that the new logo didn’t look anything like the original - and we heard your team when you said you didn’t like it. We didn’t force you to adopt it — instead, we took another swing at the illustration. > I happened to be off yesterday but I was really discouraged to read > that the team is now convinced we have to adopt your version of the > owl: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2017/tripleo.2017- > 02-14-14.00.log.html > Actually, we haven’t tried to convince the team to adopt the illustrator’s first edition of the owl - we’ve just tried to come to a compromise that fits with the style family of the rest of the mascots. I’ve asked the illustrators to try to base a new version on your original. That work is in progress. I don’t have that back from the illustrators yet. > This all sounds like we are being "steamrolled" into using the new owl > because things have to align. I'm not asking that you use our owl on > your website. But if you want to... then great. I think it is possible > to show that things work together without forcing them all to have the > same mascot styles: > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about Nobody is being steamrolled. But for use on the foundation website - when used in conjunction with the rest of the mascots - we’d like to represent all projects with a similar style. I hope that means we’ll be able to represent TripleO graphically with an owl that matches the rest in style, but we're not going to force you to adopt one. I’ll keep working with the TripleO team until we can find a solution that makes your team happy. > > But I do think the OpenStack Foundation has overstated its case here > and should reverse track a bit. Make it *clear* that projects can keep > their own version of their mascots. In fact I think the foundation > should encourage them to do so (keep the originals). The opposite seems > be happening on several projects like TripleO and Ironic. > We’ve been as clear as possible that projects can keep using their original mascot creations to use in their own ways. While I’d hope that you’d consider adopting the new logo, you don’t have to do so. Let me be clear also that while TripleO and Ironic originally had outstanding mascots with a lot of personality, that was not the case for most teams—which had none, or had a poor-quality rendering. So while 95% of the chatter on the ML has been about Ironic and TripleO not being happy about their logos, it’s not surprising because they started off with a very high bar, and we’ve paid special attention to those projects with existing mascots. I’m doing my best to field a large volume of criticism and work with literally hundreds of individuals to deliver something that is very personal and important to many. I would just ask that you assume my good intent, and the good intent of my colleagues and the illustrators. There’s no vast conspiracy to steamroll anyone. My colleague even called it “a love letter to developers” in dedicating design resources to create logos where there were none, or make some of the lesser-developed logos look better. I can only apologize that we haven’t pleased everyone, but reiterate that we’ll continue to do our best to improve. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
