On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Martijn, > > > Martijn van Exel wrote: > >> I'd have to concur. Firstly, a new logo is not something you roll out on >> its own, it's part of a new 'corporate identity' >> > > To be honest, if SWG started forming a "corporate identity subcommittee" > I'd probably run away screaming. (They would provide local chapters with > little brochures explaining how much space there must be between the logo > and any text, and which Pantone colours exactly to use for the logo. Nothing > else will do!) Next, we'll have to hire a web designer and an usability > consultant, and a PR company craft press releases about how OSM is > "reinventing location" and other bullshit bingo top hits. > Don't get me wrong - I'm not a proponent of any of that corporate identity Scheiße, but the fact of the matter is that there are innumerable publications using the now-defunct OSM logo and it's going to confuse people if they see a different logo for what we would like to think of as one entity. I'm as much a fan of leaving things to the community to sort out, but some things should be coordinated somewhat. I believe that is what the OSMF and the working groups are for. > [..] > > I like the haphazard way in which things are done around here. And I'm not > saying this tongue-in-cheek, I really do. It gives me hope that we're not > yet in a situation where every improvement has to go through some sort of > complicated three-level approval process. > > I think one long hard look at taginfo is haphazardry enough for even most people *in* the community ;) -- Martijn van Exel http://about.me/mvexel
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
