Oldak Quill wrote:
On 31/07/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
I concur, "ask Brad".
I will also ask a question to Brad. Is that a problem that the logo is
so similar to the logo of the Foundation (which seems to breech
I disagree with them looking too similar, they are part of a theme.
That's debatable. There are good sides and bad sides. I am rather
neutral toward the idea of using a "theme".
On the "good" side, it may help promote a new project that readers
automatically "connect" it with a bigger project they already love and
understand (except that the project they love is actually Wikipedia, so
they do not connect anything at all).
On the "good" side, it may help that it be "connected" with meta.
On the "bad" side, we may wonder how the logo of our 15th project will
look... it might become a bit confusing to see all these so-similar
logos. I like the egg-concept. It may be that always using the same
colors might be interpretated as a lack of creativity.
BUT *here*, my question was essentially legalistic.
Imagine Oldak... that for some reasons the projects (one or several)
separate from the Foundation. Do you think it is "legally" wise that a
project logo is actually a distorsion of the Foundation logo ?
But, in the future, perhaps a member of the board
should monitor logo
votes to prevent this kind of thing happening?
Which would require board to be informed such a vote is taking place.
I mean *really* informed. We can see *something* is going on, but we can
not be everywhere and can not follow all discussions.
It seems rather silly (and very bureaucratic) that
dozens of users
have participated in a discussion about the Incubator logo, that
several have invested time designing logos, and that dozens have
voted, only to be shot down after the completion of the vote (so
community selection of the logo) by the Foundation.
A board member is not the Foundation
And a board member is not a rubber stamp