Dante- At the point the logo was updated, there was virtually unanimous consensus that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in favor, 2 against). This satisfied the condition of the last stage of our contest, namely, optimization by consensus. As in all such consensus discussions, only interested parties participate. If you had looked around on Meta, you would have noticed that these discussions have been going on since Oct 1. What do you think where the variant submissions came from? The variant process was broadly advertised at least on the English Wikipedia. True, a person was more likely to participate if they disliked the winning logo. But that is the whole point -- those who were not happy with the new logo tried to find ways to improve it. Now it would be nice for those who do not like these improvements to comment. Most involved persons agree that the Nohat logo has a much cleaner, more refined and logo-like look. It is a logo that you can actually print on a letterhead without making an idiot of yourself when people ask you what "kallo" means (no offense to the artist, who agrees that the logo needed optimization and likes the Nohat variant). It has been our agreement that we would try to find ways to refine the winning logo concept after the contest was closed. This had been decided when it became clear that almost half of the voters on the English Wikipedia strongly disliked the winning logo (enough to vote not to ratify it at all). So what we are trying to do now is, instead of entering more and more stages of voting, find something approaching consensus on the logo. You get complaints from the consensus folks when you use voting and you get complaints from the voting folks when you use consensus. What I want to know is whether you have any substantial remarks regarding the logo itself -- how to improve it to satisfy your personal aesthetical concerns. Regards, Erik

At 08:10 AM 10/15/2003, Erik wrote: That's all well and good. There's just one problem. The submission of logos was announced on the main page of the Wikipedia. The voting for logos was announced on the main page of the W. The second round of voting was announced on the main page of the W. The final selection was announced on the main page of the W. Where was the revision process announced? I'm sorry if I don't spend as much time on the meta as on the Wikipedia proper, but there wasn't even (as far as I can tell) a single mention on the Wikipedia proper that the logo was actually being CHANGED from the initial winner to the nohat version. I was aware that there was conversation taking place about potential revisions, but frankly, I assumed that we would all be notified when someone was considering taking the drastic step of actually changing the logo live. Working on something is all well and good, but when you post it live to the 'pedia, I think you need something a little more than a consensus of 20 behind it. I would expect that a simple message to at LEAST the list ( "Hey, we're trying to get consensus on a logo, please come weigh in") or on the VP or on the Main Page. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed. I'm also a bit offended at the implications that I'm hearing that I must not have really been interested, because I wasn't able to find the discussion. Frankly, I don't spend my entire life on the Wikipedia, and if something is happening in a back corner with no advertisement, I may not find it, even if I care about it. ----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321

Dante- Again, are there any specific changes you would like to see made to the logo? Regards, Erik