Smartboy wrote: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Cory K. <coryis...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > >> We are a listless bunch. Very little direction and nothing to hold us >> together. (sorry to be critical. I think we need more of it) >> >> I was rolling around the idea of an art council to set rules and >> guidelines. Define what we are and what we hope to achieve. A 4 member >> group or so. >> >> But besides that, what would it do? >> >> Hell, I even question if this "team" of ours should be open and is a >> moderated team of old-timers and knowledgeable folks something we should >> have? All very tricky. Should anyone be on the art team? Might hurt >> somebody's feelings but I often wonder "Who are you and why is your >> opinion important?" Now this is not something I think of when someone >> takes the time to detail out *why* they have their opinion. It's the >> crazy 1-liners like "That's ugly." or "I don't like brown." So!? Ok. Bit >> of a rant that one. :P >> >> So who are we? What's our future? >> >> I'm just kinda throwing this out there. Maybe I'm nuts. >> > > Well, a page to define what we are not might be nice. IE, a page that > explains that we do not develop for the default Ubuntu artwork (that > is Canonical's art team's job)
This is pretty much done now AFAIK. > but for the community package. I think > that giving the impression that the 'team' (if you would call it that) > was open is actually in line with Ubuntu's philosophy, rather than it > giving the impression that you have to be some Picasso in order to > join the team. Yes, we do get the bad, but what is the good without > the bad? > I think to some degree, being a bit exclusionary might be a good thing. Why can't someone's inclusion on the team be based on some merit/metric. Not something I've really worked out a solid opinion on. Just a thought. -Cory K. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
