> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Dan Prince <dpri...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 19:54 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2017-02-16 14:09:53 -0500 (-0500), Dan Prince wrote: >> [...] >>> This isn't about aligning anything. It is about artistic control. >>> The >>> foundation wants to have icons their way playing the "community >>> card" >>> to make those who had icons they like conform. It is clear you buy >>> into >>> this. >>> >>> Each team will have its own mascot anyway so does it really matter >>> if >>> there is some deviation in the mix? I think not. We have a mascot >>> we >>> like. It even fits the general requirements for OpenStack mascots >>> so >>> all we are arguing about here is artistic style really. I say let >>> the >>> developers have some leverage in this category... what is the harm >>> really? >> >> [...] >> >> You're really reading far too much conspiracy into this. Keep in >> mind that this was coming from the foundation's marketing team, and >> while they've been very eager to interface with the community on >> this effort they may have failed to some degree in explaining their >> reasons (which as we all know leaves a vacuum where conspiracy >> theories proliferate). >> >> As I understand things there are some pages on the >> foundation-controlled www.openstack.org site where they want to >> refer to various projects/teams and having a set of icons >> representing them was a desire of the designers for that site, to >> make it more navigable and easier to digest. They place significant >> importance on consistency and aesthetics, and while that doesn't >> necessarily match my personal utilitarian nature I can at least >> understand their position on the matter. Rather than just words or >> meaningless symbols as icons they thought it would be compelling to >> base those icons on mascots, but to maintain the aesthetic of the >> site the specific renderings needed to follow some basic guidelines. >> They could have picked mascots at random out of the aether to use >> there, but instead wanted to solicit input from the teams whose work >> these would represent so that they might have some additional >> special meaning to the community at large. >> >> As I said earlier in the thread, if you have existing art you like >> then use that in your documentation, in the wiki, on team tee-shirts >> you make, et cetera. The goal is not to take those away. This is a >> simple need for the marketing team and foundation Web site designers >> to have art they can use for their own purposes which meets their >> relatively strict design aesthetics... and if that art is also >> something the community wants to use, then all the better but it's >> in no way mandatory. The foundation has no direct control over >> community members' choices here, nor have they attempted to pretend >> otherwise that I've seen. > > And there is that rub again. There is implied along with this pressure > to adopt the new logo. If you don't you'll get a blank space as a sort > of punishment for going your own way. As Monty said directly... they > want conformance and cohesion over team identity. > > Read the initial replies on this thread. Almost every single person > besides (Flavio and Monty) preferred to keep the original TripleO > mascot. Same thing on the Ironic thread as far as I can tell (those > devs almost all initially preferred the old mascot before they were > talked out of it.). And then you wore them down. Keep asking the same > question again and again and I guess over time people stop caring. >
FWIW, I think we all still prefer the older mascot, and will use it for our normal contexts. I changed my vote on the logo because I think we have more important things to bike shed over other than logo designs :). -Jay > Its all just silliness really. Why the foundation got involved in this > mascot business to begin with and didn't just leave it to the > individual projects. > > And again. Not a great time to be talking about any of this. My sense > of urgency is largely based on the fact that Emilien sent out an > official team stance on this. I wasn't part of that... so apologies for > being late to this conversation. > > Dan > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
