Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-36872-apmail-openoffice-dev-archive=openoffice.apache.org@openoffice.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 587AEC1AB
	for <apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Mon,  3 Jun 2013 14:17:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 7907 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2013 14:17:05 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@openoffice.apache.org
Received: (qmail 7694 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2013 14:17:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@openoffice.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@openoffice.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.openoffice.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org
Received: (qmail 7675 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2013 14:17:04 -0000
Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:17:04 +0000
Received: from localhost (HELO mail-pd0-f176.google.com) (127.0.0.1)
  (smtp-auth username robweir, mechanism plain)
  by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP;
 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:17:04 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r11so5729272pdi.35
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=google.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=0wiVLzCFlW/KCBREe3bRA2dB4p228jz35rbyA2NuPoI=;
        b=ZeJkp3XN8On2OYHUFk8J/LvELM6nob6CILW0bO//XqC0+80uSA4SA11VPS43O3ioqn
         nVg8GgcouRhYXX0tF/ynMaIm5qCs+tF9mlotvyC8Ya32h3hMqr7RDOR2iMZnsi9NxNzq
         g2ZIKFn80wdLIcR3uMnaIZjrac0YrDEkmVOpncK3ECOgcBhexcm/Qa3XJkgecSxphYA3
         8WYFpcGUKe7hrb7HnPN4Qp3wblhumzngG42pJRXxXUScu9d/uaQABcqQq3BOASR4Ecxs
         1mCUMFYwr1Z0FOnbMOwSb72pLDfTgUix9ImWgxsvpgXIxjgUxpKL2HhKu3eOvqygiPvA
         MVDg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.251.202 with SMTP id zm10mr24749380pac.53.1370269024272;
 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.27.132 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksojZneh2B0-M0Dtj+4GxtXMtAnv5oTtdESLZmne52HRF+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksojZneh2B0-M0Dtj+4GxtXMtAnv5oTtdESLZmne52HRF+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:17:04 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksohzK=+=4GmXHx+dx4yEy4KHDdy98EdCUiP2THTDUSzi2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: "dev@openoffice.apache.org" <dev@openoffice.apache.org>,
	"marketing@openoffice.apache.org" <marketing@openoffice.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> What we've done so far:
>
> 1) Called for logo submissions from the community
>
> 2) Many designers responded and we received 40 submissions.  There was
> a lot of "cross-fertilization" of ideas, as designers saw what others
> had come up with, what worked, and borrowed ideas.
>
> 3) We did a survey of user responses to the 40 logo submissions.  Over
> 5000 users offered their ratings and written comments.
>
> 4) Publish report and blog post on the results of the logo survey.
>
> 5) Invited the designers of the top-rated logos to read over the
> survey comments and refine their designs and submit an updated
> version.
>
> That's where we are now.  The updated logos (three of them) are on the wiki now:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Stage+2+Logo+Refinement
>
> As you can see there is quite a bit of convergence on a design occurring.
>
> So what next?
>
> I'd like to propose some next steps.
>
> A) Let's discuss the three designs on the mailing list for the next
> week.   The discussion might lead to further refinement.
>
> B) If at the end of the week there is consensus on a single design
> we'll go with that one.
>

One week has passed.  We've had some good discussion, and further
refined one of the logos.  Personally I am seeing convergence of
opinion around one of the logos.   However, some community members
expressed a preference for different logos from the survey (not the
top ones).  One community member (Hagar) suggested not changing the
logo at all, and another one (Graham) wanted to go back to the
OpenOffice.org word mark and logo from OOo 3.3.0.  So I'm not willing
to claim that there is consensus.

Also, my perception is that the discussion is not advancing, and minds
are unlikely to change with further discussion.  So I'll start a
72-hour vote later today.   Since we have more than one option for a
logo, I'll ask PMC members to list their ranked preferences.  The
ballot will be scored via Instant Run-Off  Voting (IRV) rules [1].
I'll include a "don't change the logo" option as well as a position
for a write-in choice.  Everyone will have the opportunity to express
their preference.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Regards,

-Rob


> C) If at the end of the week there is not consensus on a single
> design, and the discussion is not leading us closer toward consensus,
> then we'll have a 72-hour vote of PMC members to pick the logo.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org