couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lena Reinhard <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Improved CouchDB logo
Date Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:52:23 GMT
Joan, thanks for sharing the experiences you had. I find it quite interesting that it's been
happening a few times even, and I'm glad people shared their thoughts on it.

First, as far as I perceive the topic, this is not just about the question if people just
"like" the logo or don't. It's about people feeling offended by it. And thus, it would not
be about personal taste or preferences.
(Side note, as we're talking about "what does the logo remind us of?" –

Secondly, this is not necessarily about the intentions of the logo. It may have been created
depicting a person without an explicit gender expression, and that would be completely alright.
But good intentions do generally not mean that the intention aligns with the final perception.
That's one of the basics of human interaction and communication, and our logo is part of what
we communicate around this project. This logo is even a very central part, as it can be recognised
very well, it has a prominient spot on most of CouchDB's web sites, and we even have stickers
with it. A consequence of this can (worst case) even be that people stay away from the community
because the logo communicates to them that it's not a place for them.

And as this obviously can be read as offensive by people, imo it's our responsibility as a
community to discuss this issue and how to handle this – not based on the question whether
we individually "like" the logo or not, but on the question whether people could find it offensive
(which some obviously do) and how we handle this – e.g. who could think of alternative versions
of the logo, and similar questions.
We are a community which has recently put up a Code of Conduct and Diversity statement, and
as such, I see caring about this topic as part of our responsibility here.

On 28 Oct 2014, at 11:58, Bryan Green <> wrote:

> When the image lacks detail to signify it is not a man it will be thought
> to be male.  IRL.
> On Oct 28, 2014 5:54 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Nick North <> wrote:
>>> I don't see anything offensive in the attitude of the man on the couch.
>> But
>>> I would be more sympathetic to the complaint that it is definitely a man,
>>> in a very male attitude, and that might be enough to put some women off
>>> becoming involved in the community.
>> sure that is totally a man position:
>> Seriously, can people just go back IRL.
>> - benoit

View raw message