On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> (Note this discussion is going to be difficult because we are posting >>> between two lists.) > > Adding back marketing, who are doing wonderful work. > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Samer Mansour wrote: >>> >>>> Hello AOO Dev and Marketing Community, >>>> >>>> The main subject of this e-mail is to call for an end date to proposals. >>>> In 72hrs (saturday) we will be closing branding proposals. >>>> >>>> - - - - - >>>> >>>> I am heading up the branding effort for the AOO 4.0 release and we can >>>> unanimously agree the 4.0 release will be a milestone for our community and >>>> users. For this special release the marketing team is taking on the effort >>>> to giving us a fresh look. >>>> >>>> The marketing team is starting to plot deadlines at the same time as the >>>> dev team, the marketing team can't keep proposing ideas forever, we >>>> actually need to do the work to get us there. Specially because some dev >>>> efforts require assets from our designers. >>>> >>>> What does that mean? >>>> - We're picking and choosing. Late submissions might not be considered >>>> (just the nature of "just do it" sorry). >>>> - Eliminating designs we don't like and smoothing and integrating ones we >>>> do like. >>>> - In a week from Saturday we will have a master proposal to present for >>>> lazy consensus. (at least that's the plan) >>> >>> I do not think that this can operate as lazy consensus,. it is a process >>> that is more opinion based than most. >>> >>> It is possible that the Marketing team can make some discussions, but the >>> community may have other preferences. >>> >> >> Indeed I assume there would be many opinions. But in the discussion >> that had lead up to this has noted that there are well-established >> design and marketing best practices for logo desgin, and giving some >> trust to those volunteers with knowledge of these disciplines might >> yield a better result that throwing it out to a general vote of 400 >> subscribers to the dev list and their individual non-expert opinions. >> >> Now you could argue that opinions of non-experts is useful, and what >> the general public thinks is important. True, but that is better done >> with an expertly-designed survey of the general public, not by >> bikeshedding on the dev list. > > The opinions of non-experts are useful and that is a fact. This is not > general public opinion it is the AOO community. An expertly designed survey > is often called a BALLOT. Please design one to either validate a single > decision, or to choose between a few of the designs so that the result is not > a fait accompli. > > Validation is good. > >> We've kicked the can down the road with regards to a grand contest for >> almost a year now. We're no closer to than we were when we started. >> Do we want to ship 4.0 with a half-assed logo attempt done at the last >> minute? Or do we want to let the marketing experts push this forward. > > Straw man. One year ago we had maybe 2 or 3 logo proposals. Now there are > several logos and designs proposed and only a few are IMO half-assed. Many > IMO are excellent! >
The fact that there is more than one proposal does not recommend a vote. It recommends discussion and building consensus. Voting is the crudest way to gain consensus, if it even works to do that. >> And remember, if someone really doesn't like the output of this >> process, they can object and offer an alternative at any time. But I >> don't think we can force a volunteer, or group of volunteers, to >> pursue a contest versus an approach based on best practices and >> working with a small set of already-active volunteers. > > Three points. > > (1) There is a public solicitation for proposals. These submissions must be > fairly treated. > I don't think anyone has suggested being unfair. > (2) No force is involved. Just a suggestion and a reminder that LAZY > CONSENSUS should not be assumed. If necessary we can design a ballot on the > dev list. > Lazy consensus can *always* be sought. If there are objections, then we can discuss. Voting should be the *last resort*, since with voting some win and some loose. > (3) The only legitimate VETO here is if the Logo and Design selected > infringed or nearly infringed on another's mark (like one subtly does), or if > it were somehow foul and offensive in some culture. In that case the > technical alternative is to choose one of the non-infringing or insulting > logos or designs. > > A VETO is a "let's discuss this" it must not be a "your work is awful take it > back." > No one said anything about a veto. I think you would agree that there are intermediate things between not being able to *assume* consensus and an outright veto. In any case, not agreeing that there *could be* lazy consensus before even seeing a proposal pushed forward is pointless. > This argues that the sooner the community agrees the better. The Apache Way > is about the flattest hierarchy possible. Decisions are to made (validated) > on the dev list. > Right. And if the marketing list brings forward a single proposal, I absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if someone wants to bring forward a proposal not from the marketing list then that is fine as well. -Rob > Thanks and Regards, > Dave > >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >>> I don't think that we need to be afraid of having a VOTE. Rules can be >>> generated and this dev list can tolerate the extra traffic. >>> >>> I participated in a two round vote for Apache Flex. There were over 50 >>> entries. Each ballot had 5 votes which allowed people with strong opinions >>> to vote for one logo and others who liked many designs could split their >>> vote. >>> >>> (Note this discussion is going to be difficult because we are posting >>> between two lists.) >>> >>>> >>>> How can you help? >>>> - - - - - >>>> - I have design skills! (or I think!) >>>> -> Check out some guidelines and placements of the branding, see children >>>> of this cwiki page: >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.0+Brand+Refresh+Project >>>> -> Go to our wiki and sketch out some ideas here: >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.x+-+Logo+Explorations >>>> -> They don't have to be complete or polished ideas, ie. you only have >>>> ideas for icons and only have 2 hours to create the proposal, capture the >>>> main idea but don't worry about detail. >>>> -> Join the marketing mailing list to help us with implementing the final >>>> design: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/call_for_marketing_volunteers >>>> >>>> - I don't have design skills?! >>>> -> Go to our wiki and help us by commenting on designs, DO NOT reply with >>>> comments about design in these mailing lists. >>>> -> There is about 10 pages and they all could use some feedback in the >>>> comments: >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.0+Brand+Refresh+Project >>>> -> I will call for any final discussion on Saturday once the deadline has >>>> passed. >>> >>> I have added comments including the volunteer and organization hurdles to >>> make certain branding changes. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>>> >>>> If you have any concerns about this process reply here. >>>> >>>> Do not reply to this e-mail to talk about designs! Go to the wiki and add >>>> design comments there! >>> >
