> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'll leave you with a fairly simple question: > > > I like the swirl logo, and want it to be widely used. > > I don't like the bottle logo, and don't want it as our official logo. > > > > How should I vote ? > > AH! Now I understand where you're coming from. And I sympathize, I > do, but the time for that option was during the main logo vote. The > Modified Swirl did NOT win, and I'm afraid you may just have to learn > to live with that.
Well, quite. If people had left it alone, I probably would have too, at least until last weekend when I found myself explaining to several people that I couldn't sell them a swirl T-Shirt, because they were licensed in a way that probably meant that only developers, on official business can wear them :-( (we were giving away CDs at the time, which seems sort of official) > (I don't know if the details should be discussed publicly, but I can > tell you that I have strong reason to believe that the bottle may not > be used much if it *does* become the official logo. So you may *well* > get your wish *if* the swap passes.) Here's my problem. Subverting the process by proposing something that is tangential to ones aims seems plain wrong to me. We're not sneaky politicians here, so why are we acting like them ? You went on on to say two other things: 1) the logo swap was aired during the vote. 2) the Modified swirl lost, so should be discounted Where was the swap discussed? Let me guess: On debian-vote prior to it being published on the archive pages? Would that also be the hiding place that was found for the definition of ``Modified Swirl'' ? Is anyone else feeling just a little disenfranchised here? To quote one of the messages that did actually make it onto the web pages (after I'd voted BTW), written by Darren O. Benham: <http://www.uk.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-9905/msg00010.html> On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 07:06:15PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > [an explanation of what Modified Switl was, deleted for brevity] ... > I have no idea how many developers understood this when voting -- I > certainly didn't without checking the -vote archives. Actually, I was told before the vote took place that the pages were being archived so I was relying on that for clarification. I wasn't aware until recently that the archives WERENOT up. That has been fixed. I saw some may archives today. That pretty neatly describes the situation I was in at the time. I've had a couple of mails today from people who were unaware that a vote was on, until I started making waves on -devel. This really isn't good. Swirl had pretty much won when I voted IIRC (which looking at my mail was 28 May 1999) whereas the description of what Modified Swirl was didn't appear on the vote page until some time later. How can you draw any conclusion from the fact that Swirl got more votes in these circumstances? As it happens, I voted for Swirl over Modified Swirl at the time, and didn't bother to change it because I couldn't imagine that anyone was going to try to use the relative ordering as significant, given the cock-up of the vote page for the bulk of the voting period. <sarcasm> Interestingly, the fact that we were voting on a swapable bottle when we voted swirl, is still not mentioned on that page. Perhaps someone should add this now in order to legitimise the latest vote. </sarcasm> To reinforce that point, a quote from joey on the same day: Looking at the current state, the logos named SWIRL will win, but these are two logos x 2, so we have four. Err, which swirl is will it be? Or do we need to vote again if bottle only or not, if swirl plus bottle, or swirl only. Or am I going crazy? Regards, Joey BTW Please don't accuse me of trying to restart the logo vote. I'm pretty certain there is a consensus for the swirl, and I don't want that to change. What I don't think we have a consensus on is how precisely that logo is to be deployed, or whether there should be two licenses, or whether one of them should include a bottle. Looking at the voting record, only 21 people listed both Swirl and Dual as 1. These are the only people you can claim definitely wanted the bottle for some purpose, and some of them may have actually wanted it the way it is, not swapped. In fact there is a much stronger case for suggesting that we agreed that there should be two licenses, since at least it was completely clear what that vote was about, and yet this latest vote seems likely to put one of those licenses out to pasture, along with the bottle that will never be used. Is this the hidden agenda that I was smelling ? Cheers, Phil.
