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: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-05 11:59:53

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
Behalf Of
> Stewart, Robert
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:38 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or
unreleased boost
> documentation
> 
> > 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.)

I'm "Nice to have" about this - but we need more people to express a view.
 
> 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.

OK - in summary I'll happy with with proposing

"Powered by"  - for Google, Microsoft and other users of Boost Libraries.

and 

"For use with"  - for general use, not making any claims.

If others share my need to create

"Proposed for" - if in the review queue.

we can add that later.

Let's get the misleading labelling of "not yet accepted' stuff right first.

If those with enough stamina to follow this thread can agree, I suggest we start
a new thread

"Two new icons for Boost documentation."

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB
[phone], mobile [phone]
pbristow_at_[hidden]