On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:24:17 -0700, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
gave utterance to the following:
tarquin wrote:
The current winner should be disqualified on
technical grounds -- it simply does not meet the
design brief of the competition.
In a democracy sometimes your side loses. Get over it work on a better
variant
of the *same* concept.
What you are saying is, so long as he won most votes, you wouldn't object
to Richard Branson becoming Governor of California, despite the technical
fact that as a British citizen he wouldn't qualify?
Of course that scenario simply isn't likely to happen in most democratic
states, because technical qualification is screened before a candidate is
eligible* - a step which didn't happen here.
I think that next time we choose a logo, be that sooner or later,
candidates should be judged under three or four categories. The technical
ones - whether a logo will adapt well to being printed 6mm high on a pen,
and whether it meets the design brief, to be judged by an expert panel
(and if necessary, experts from outside the W community, e.g. printers) in
order to qualify for the democratic aspects such as symbolism and
aestetics. After all, Miss world is supposedly judged on intelligence and
personality, not just how she looks in a swimsuit :-)
*In New Zealand's last election, an elected MP was ousted a month after
the election because it was realized that she only had permanent
residency, not citizenship. She claimed to have "misunderstood" a part of
the candidacy declaration.
--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried