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: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-05 08:38:02

Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> Patrick Horgan
> >
> > I removed a bunch of the icons and added "for use with" so
> > that you can see it.
>
> I don't like it much.
>
> I doesn't make clear if the library is intended for
> submission to Boost (or is
> just using Boost libraries or in Boost style).

That's the point.  It is supposed to be widely applicable.

> I like red for making clear that it's "Not an accepted Boost library".

I agree.

> What happened to "Developing for" in red icon?

As Patrick pointed out several times, that can imply official Boost association as in, "Boost asked me to develop this for them."

> This is what I believe we need for the original posters question.

I thought that "for use with" would be enough different from "powered by" to permit its broad application to libraries developed with the intention of being submitted as well as those just done in the Boost style or with interaction with Boost as a design goal.

> It's in danger of turning into a bike shed issue ;-(

It seems like we're fairly close.  We know what the original logo means.  We agree that "powered by" is suitable for use by applications and libraries that use Boost and are willing to advertise as much.  One open question is whether we need a third logo for libraries being developed with the intent to submit to Boost for review and, if so, what it should say.  There's also the question of whether a logo is needed for libraries developed to interoperate with Boost without intention of becoming part of Boost.  I had hoped that "for use with" would satisfy both of the latter uses.

I know you're convinced that a special logo is necessary for libraries being developed to submit for review.  You haven't convinced me of that.  I don't know if you've convinced anyone else.  If others are convinced, then its a question of what that logo should say.  "Developing for" and "under construction for" are wrong for the purpose.  "Proposed for" is only correct for a library for which a review request has been made.  (I picked those three because they are currently in Patrick's example set.)

You have yet to answer my concern that allowing a library to use a being-developed-for-possible-inclusion-in-Boost logo means that an author must take positive action to replace the logo for a rejected library left to languish or further developed outside of Boost.  A less specific logo, such as "powered by" or "for use with" works fine for such libraries without the author needing to take any action.  This ensures that libraries don't suggest more than they should in such cases, though it doesn't meet your desire to label libraries as on their way to review.

Perhaps a good first step, if nothing better appears soon, is to add "powered by" and "for use with" and use them for a while as I've described.  If someone finds the magical phrase for a logo that means being-developed-for-possible-inclusion-in-Boost without requiring that it be removed later to avoid overstating the relationship if nothing comes of the library, then we can add that logo at that time.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.