geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: Generic Logo Contest Guidelines
Date Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:49:58 GMT> <> <>
<> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version
X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As
X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version

Working off your comment below I cam to the same conclusion last night.  I 
suggest that we vote all images with 2 to 3 votes for primary, seconda and third 
alternate.  The PMC can then take on the burden of scrubbing the votes.  The 
best case is we have a clear, non-controversial winner, and worst case, the PMC 
needs to discriminate the images based on the PRC and the PMC can work with the 
PRC to resolve the issues with the community feedback as their rationale / 

I will update the logo page this afternoon with this idea (actually, its mostly 
done now) and start the voting on Monday.  I'd rather get back to analyzing 
Geronimo code than political undertones :)

Comments?  Barring sharp disagreement I'm proceeding on this tack.


Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2005, at 7:11 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 2005, at 8:47 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>> Lets cut to the root of it - Is your problem with having to work  
>>>> within the guidelines from the PRC, or is there some particular  
>>>> problem with the guidelines themselves?  I'm sure that if it's  the 
>>>> latter, any reasonable suggestion, change or addition will be  
>>>> welcomed.
>>> Well cutting to the chase, I do have a problem with the  guidelines.  
>>> Everyone has an opinion on the logo, but the opinion  of the folks 
>>> involved in the PRC seem to cary veto power.  It is  clear that the 
>>> PRC is simply trying to avoid potential future  problems, and I 
>>> believe that it is important for the members of  the Geronimo 
>>> community to hear the concerns of the PRC.  I expect  the Geronimo 
>>> community should take this into account when  selecting a logo, but I 
>>> don't think that anyone other then the  Geronimo community should be 
>>> choosing the logo.
>>> The big problem here is the most popular logo is #11, and there  are 
>>> a few outsiders that don't like this.  Instead of them coming  to the 
>>> community and trying to convince the community that this is  a bad 
>>> choice, the PRC simply issues a mandate, and that grates on  me.  I 
>>> say, if you want to be involved in the Geronimo logo  process come 
>>> here and discuss it, otherwise keep your opinions to  your self.
>> First, don't forget that this is an Apache project, and therefore  we 
>> have to abide by Apache Foundation guidelines for things.
> In every email I have sent I have made this point.  If this is an  
> official "Apache Foundation guideline" then we must follow it, or  
> appeal it to the board.  I am questioning if this is an official  
> "Apache Foundation guideline".
>> Second, I think you are leaping to conclusions.  If there is a logo  
>> that we feel may not satisfy the guidelines but feel is ok, we  should 
>> probably just ask the PRC.
> That statement implies that the PRC has jurisdiction over logo  
> selection, and I am questioning that.
>>> If this is an official mandate of the board then we must accept  it, 
>>> but I'm not happy about it, which is why I feel it is critical  to 
>>> determine if this is a mandate of the board.  Did the board  give the 
>>> PRC rule making authority over all imagery at Apache?
>> Yes.
> Cool.  That was all I was asking.  Now for a bit of Regan "trust but  
> verify".  Where can I find the Board resolution stating this?
>>>   Did the board specifically direct the PRC to create logo  guidelines?
>> No, but that's utterly irrelevant.  I asked the PRC to create  
>> guidelines, because our name selection was and is controversial,  and 
>> there's absolutely no reason to further antagonize members of  the 
>> Apache community with a logo decision along the same lines.   Further, 
>> our name and imagery will be used far and wide in the  industry, and 
>> very prominently, and I thought that was another  excellent reason.
> Assuming the above is true, I agree the question was irrelevant.  If  
> you did have concerns, why didn't you come to the community first?
>>> Has the Board officially accepted these guidelines or is this  still 
>>> a rough draft?
>> Again, utterly irrelevant, as the board has officially delegated  
>> responsibility for branding and imaging to the PRC, and doesn't  need 
>> to review every decision.   If there are issues with the  guidelines, 
>> the PRC will welcome our feedback.  If we're not  satisfied, we can 
>> appeal to the board, but I'm not sure what we'd  be trying to achieve 
>> at that point.
> I think it is completely relevant.  Given that this policy effects  the 
> entire ASF and changes the way logos has been done up to this  point, if 
> this is just a draft, I would propose that we wait for the  final form, 
> because my guess is it will tick off some powerful Apache  members, and 
> be changed.
>>>   I personally will be more comfortable if we knew exactly where  
>>> these guidelines stand within Apache.
>> I hope it's clear now.
> It is now.  I was my understanding that Apache tended favor putting  
> decisions into "Project Rights" and not "Foundation Rights", but I  
> guess as any organization ages there is a tendency to centralize more  
> and more.
>>> BTW, I personally think #11 is tacky, but not offensive, and am  fine 
>>> to have it in the contest, but personally #9 to win.
>> If we think that we should go to the PRC about #11 and ask, lets do  
>> that.  Otherwise, lets move on.
> Good idea.  Why don't we have the logo contest will all logos?  I  think 
> everyone in the community gets the seriousness of this issue,  and will 
> take it into account when voting.  If the winner is not  approved by the 
> PRC, then we can take it to the board.
> -dain

View raw message