incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Moving ahead with the AOO logo and rebranding
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:24:42 GMT
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
>  1. I think there should be agreement on the design and not the fine technicalities
(is the font and its license, is there one or more SVG masters, what are the crafted bitmap
renderings, etc.).
>  2. It should also be clear what situations a particular image is intended to be employed
in to accomplish branding.

We'll eventually have a full branding "package".  This would be a set
of images, in SVG, but also rasterized, in a variety of variations,
formats, sizes and aspect ratios, suitable for a variety of uses.
Some might be specialized for splash screen, others for "powered by"
use, etc.  The full package would also have guidance on how the logos
should be used.

We don't want to require a full package be submitted initially.  That
would not be reasonable.  But we could certainly scope out what a
package might look like, and ask for 1 or 2 specific representative
logos (in whatever format) with the understanding that if the logo is
accepted, we'll need to work on generating the full package
eventually.  For the full package the technicalities will be
important.  But not so much for the initial review.

> I would like to narrow this to the case that Drew's two image sizes (plus the SVG master)
was directed toward, not any of the other cases (splash screens, icons, etc.).
> Now along comes discussion about "incubating" and how/where/whether it appears, as well
as two additional images.  There is also some more-technical consideration with regard to
the rendering of the bitmaps at different scales, but that is very much second-order.
> My recommendation is that all of this be consolidated on one wiki page that is specifically
about the case that Drew was covering and where the considerations can be identified as well,
but the scope be kept small.
> This is so (1) it is known exactly what the scope of deliberation is and (2) the constraints
that are accepted as requirements for elements of the design can be captured and not have
to be recreated by deep mining into earlier discussions.
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir []
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:58
> To:
> Subject: Re: Moving ahead with the AOO logo and rebranding
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> A month ago Drew sent a logo proposal to the ooo-marketing list.  It
>> has been discussed and iterated on that list.  The current state of
>> the proposal is on the wiki:
>> Personally I think this is fine work, and since we've received no
>> counter-proposals in the last month, we should go ahead and update the
>> splash screen and website with the new logo.  That's my opinion.
>> However, others have suggested we take a RTC approach to this.  So be
>> it.
>> Please review the logo proposal on the above wiki page.  If you have a
>> counter proposal now, or if you intend to make a counter-proposal but
>> need more time, then please speak up.  But if there are no other
>> proposals, then we have lazy consensus.
> We now have more than one logo proposal.  So I'll withdraw my proposal
> to move forward with Drew's logo (the only one we had at the time).
> Would it be worth at this point, having a public call for proposals on
> the logo?  Maybe advertise with a blog post?  Give a month or two to
> collect responses, then we vote?
> If we did that, we'd probably want to start with some logo
> requirements first, things like:
> -- Must say Apache OpenOffice (TM)
> -- Must include "incubating"
> -- Must be in SVG format
> -- Must be readable in both color and monochrome
> -- Must be available in the following sizes
> -- Must use freely available fonts
> (Those are examples only.  We might drop, modify or add similar
> requirements.  The point is we probably want to encourage proposals to
> conform to  a set of branding and technical requirements)
> -Rob
>> Considering that some project members may still be on vacation, I'd
>> like to leave this open for another full week.
>> -Rob

View raw message