--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
I think a little patience is called for here.
start over and call for
I disagree with this notion that the voting process
was "ruined' or that "starting over" will accomplish
You didn't have a good design in the competition. Just be patient and one
will turn up.
The arguments against the current logo fall into only
two camps-- its terrible ( a meaningless, subjective
Heh, if taste were only subjective....
. And "its too cluttered" ( which can be
fixed at [[m:final logo variants]].)
Yes, and that can be improved but perhaps not fixed.
I agree that next time will be better, but I dislike
the 20/20 hindsight of people who say it was wrong
from the start. Where were you two months ago, with
your better ideas?
Well, I was minding my own business, finding a logo for
My better idea is that if you are patient, and wait til the right thing
comes along you will end up with something very nice.
The only thing *wrong* with the process now-- is the
perception that the ratification of the logo (as it
exists now ) is an urgent one-- as if we want the logo
to be ready for the press release, which absolutely
must be ready when the ticker (arbitrarily set:
sizeX="article") ticks at 300K.
Dont rush the cooks while their cooking, unless you
want the chef's surprise.
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Wikipedia-l mailing list