Instead of pointing fingers at people, design flaws
problems like many of us did in a previous thread (me included), I think
we'd better analyze the process and at least learn from this for the future.
I'm sure Erik agrees with this. One of the great things about the
logo competition is that it isn't a matter of grave policy import, and
so we can learn to improve the process in a safe way, with not too
much harm done if it doesn't go perfectly.
I'd say that one way to characterize the challenge is this:
Given irreconcilable alternatives such that there is no obvious
consensus or even majority choice, the formal process of making a
choice is sufficiently satisfactory that a very high percentage of
interested parties will agree that the outcome of the process should
be followed, even if their favorite atlernative doesn't win.
That's the way I feel about the current logo. It wasn't my first
choice, but I support the idea of voting, I support the process, and I
think we should go with it.
I *do* note though that we have room for improvement if we aren't
seeing a very high percentage of the 'ratification' votes saying
"O.k., let's do it, even though my candidate didn't win."
I hope that anyone who wasn't thinking of the ratification process in
this light will go back and change their vote.
Perhaps in the future, we should focus our internal attitude
adjustments on a community commitment to respect and support community