From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 20:50:37
Rob Stewart wrote:
> The real issue, though, is how to vote in light of the
> discussion. The vote isn't just up or down as with a review. As
> Jonathan's comments allude to, one might vote for log N, but only
> if the color is changed to C or the wording is changed to ABC.
> Unfortunately, there's no guarantee of the desired outcome, so if
> one votes for something with caveats, is that vote reversed or
> can it be revised it if those caveats are not met?
I assume not. But discussing it here is a way to get some rought idea how likely
the feature is to be changed after acceptance.
> Things get
> really complicated.
> Also, the voting methodology mentioned on the logo page said
> nothing about public discussion of desired alterations to make a
> given logo acceptable. If we choose to go that route, shouldn't
> we get approval from all of those that submitted logos?
I don't see why that would be necessary.
1. People who feel uncomfortable when there work is judged publicly wouldn't
have entered it in a contest.
2. Knowledge that the logo would be discussed wouldn't have caused people to
submit different designs.
> Let's remember that the reason we're voting is to get what we,
> collectively, think is the best logo for Boost. That includes
> subjective and objective criteria.
I think we were assuming that attempting to change someone's view on an
aesthetic matter would be nothing more than peer pressure. May this is not true.
Jonathan