ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Logo Decision process
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2001 02:01:22 GMT
+1

me too ;)

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:29, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> Christoph,
>
> Let me add a +1. Sorry, I figured this had lazy approval.
>
> Conor
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christoph Wilhelms [mailto:Christoph.Wilhelms@t-online.de]
> > Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 4:20 AM
> > To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Logo Decision process
> >
> >
> > Of course you can, for there was just a single +1 vote (mine) on
> > the process
> > and schedule I proposed. That means, that not enough committers agreed to
> > the process and another proposal has to be made and to be voted. Feel
> > free to submit. I think I'll come up with a new schedule-proposal next
> > week! IMHO
> > we need to finsh this task ASAP :-)!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > > so, can I still mail in a logo sunday night?  or when is the
> > > exact deadline?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Joris
> > >
> > > Christoph Wilhelms wrote:
> > > > Feel free, to arrange groups, then! I do NOT want to have the
> > >
> > > responsibility
> > >
> > > > for the groups. Generally I'd -0 the group-topic for I have
> > >
> > > some concerns,
> > >
> > > > but I do not veto at all!
> > > >
> > > > One thing is important to me: We should speed up with the
> > >
> > > decision project,
> > >
> > > > to make shure, that we do not lose the logo contributers,
> > >
> > > because they might
> > >
> > > > think, that we aren't interested in a logo anymore! An IMHO we
> > >
> > > need these
> > >
> > > > contributers after we decided on a logo, because we might need other
> > > > versions of the logo: smaller, bigger version, "build by" versions,
> > > > vectoriced versions for beeing printed in mags or adds or
> > >
> > > apache-T-shirts
> > >
> > > > ;-) and version I can't think of ATM!
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:j_a_fernandez@yahoo.com]
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Christoph Wilhelms [mailto:Christoph.Wilhelms@impress.com]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the families of logos:
> > > > > > In some cases its easy to find groups, but in some it isn't.
> > > > > > I really do not
> > > > > > want to decide to group them... For instance there are 2
> > > > > > similar logos with
> > > > > > gray and red and a big ANT on it (from Rubus). I really like
> > > > > > the first one,
> > > > > > but dislike the second one. what vote should i give, if they
> > > > > > are in the same
> > > > > > family! Due to that reason I'd -0.5 the "families-idea"
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not see the problem you have with the family round of
> > > > > votes. What has
> > > > > been suggested is to have a first round where we pick a
> > > > > family and then a
> > > > > second round to pick ONE of the logos from the winning
> > > > > family. A family will
> > > > > be constitutes only by logos of the same submitter that have SMALL
> > > > > variations between them (colors, additional text, etc). There
> > > > > are several
> > > > > logos that can be easily cathegorized that way.

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof."                   *
*              - John Kenneth Galbraith               *
*-----------------------------------------------------*

Mime
View raw message