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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk