All, I would remind you to try and proceed in this discussion with a modicum of decorum and assuming good faith on the part of those engaged. Sarcasm, anger, and facetious responses are not helping.
Once again, for the record, I don't have a problem with the logo personally, but I have a responsibility to raise this issue as a representative of the PMC and because of the requests of those who approached me. I have no other mission here. I knew when I started the thread it'd turn into a bikeshed; sadly, there was no way to avoid that, as burying the requests would be tantamount to me making an *individual* decision that trumps that of the collective -- hardly becoming behaviour for a PMC member. Let me try and summarize the discussion to date. I didn't count up responses to the thread, but it seems clear that nearly all respondents so far have no issue personally with the logo. A minority of individuals suggested that it may be time to change the logo, the tagline and even the project name for various reasons. If we're considering any of these steps, now would be the time to figure that out -- prior to the impending 2.0 beta and release. I'd like to steer discussion towards these points and away from the topic of logo acceptability -- it's become clear to me that there is no further useful discussion possible on that topic. Best regards, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Green" <dbryan.gr...@gmail.com> To: "Giovanni Parra" <fiat...@gmail.com> Cc: user@couchdb.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:18:10 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Improved CouchDB logo I am sure someone would find it offensive (maybe artists)? The point is that we can't decide what is offensive to someone else. We should do our best, within reason, to not offend. Also, the you have to keep in mind that a brand logo is not just art. It has a particular use to get a branding message across. If we feel that the current brand for couchdb is best represented by the current logo, then we shouldn't change anything and be ok with the people who are put off from couchdb due to the logo (no matter how "silly" we think that is). If we have doubts then we should discuss it. Personally, I am not sure the Relax mantra is a good one anymore either. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Giovanni P <fiat...@gmail.com> wrote: > After re-reading the first message of the thread I'm convinced that, > despite the present logo not being offensive in any way, it can sometimes > give a wrong impression. > > My humble suggestion is that we gather suggestions and, if we find none, > maintain the logo. Otherwise change it. > > So here is my (serious) idea for a logo that fits with the "relax" motto: > http://www.papeldeparede.etc.br/wallpapers/snoopy-e-woodstock_6591_1024x768.jpg > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Giovanni P <fiat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Et_selskab_af_danske_kunstnere_i_Rom.jpg >> is this offensive? >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bryan Green <dbryan.gr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I would assume we would discuss it as we are now. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Giovanni P <fiat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If I declare myself offended (for no reason, because there is >>>> absolutely no >>>> reason to be offended by the present logo) by the next logo you come up >>>> with, will you change it? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Bryan Green <dbryan.gr...@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > It may not offend you, but apparently it offends some people. This >>>> is a >>>> > > bad thing for a logo. I think this is why it is rare for the human >>>> > figure >>>> > > to be common in most logos. Most keep logos very simple. >>>> > >>>> > There are 7 billion people on Earth - you'll never fit them all. >>>> > Let's move away from abstract angry offended people to concrete ones >>>> > with their own arguments why they thought that logo hits them and >>>> > discuss their problem personally. Anyone around? Joan? >>>> > Otherwise this is counterproductive discussion about edge cases which >>>> > will never happens. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > ,,,^..^,,, >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
