Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation

Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-04 13:48:24

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Patrick Horgan <phorgan1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I've mentioned before that I think "developing for" is unclear, but I
> haven't really said what bothers me about it. Â The sense you mean, I think,
> is "I'm developing this software for possible future inclusion in boost".
> Â The one that I worry about is, "I'm acting as some sort of (quasi-)official
> representative of boost, and I'm developing this for them". Â It's as if I
> was a contractor or some super duper special boost guy, and I was
> "developing for" boost under contract. Â After all, if I sent you an email
> saying that I was working on a library that I was "developing for" Apple,
> it's what you would assume. Â Now I know that it doesn't happen like that
> with boost, but most people in the software community don't read this list,
> don't know anything about how boost works, and could just as easily come to
> that conclusion as the other. Â It could easily be misconstrued because it
> doesn't clearly say, "I'm developing this with the thought that I might
> submit it to boost and see how it goes."

I agree.  Might I suggest "Potential" or "Unreviewed" above the Boost
logo in place of "Developing for"?  Disregard the plurality mismatch
since we do that already when the "Boost C++ Libraries" logo appears
with a single library.  It's a given that it's "Part of" the "Boost
C++ Libraries".  It will also be a given that an unreviewed potential
library is "Part of" the "Potential Boost C++ Libraries"

--Michael Fawcett