[boost] Re: Logo 67 bad [was: Logo comments]

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-10 00:37:17

"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:d0oki6$v17$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > "Jonathan Turkanis" writes:
> >> Reid Sweatman wrote:
>
> >>> But it would have
> >>> been my first choice, too; ought to be some way to rework it while
> >>> keeping the essence.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the contest is closed now. I don't think we can open
> >> up one of the logos for major redesign without doing it for the
> >> others.
> >
> > Maybe we should do that.  We've learned a lot since this started.
>
> This would be fine with me.

I don't have a clear winner(s) either. None of the submission as it is
wouldn't be acceptable IMO. I also support second round. Couple notes in
this regard:

1. We need to specify our hmm.. priorities/criteria's in a some written form
on logo contest page. We could update this list based on discussions and
apply them to existing submissions to eliminate failing submission from
further discussion.
2. We should continue discussion. No need to wait for "voting" stage to
express opinions on submission. If there is a consensus that submission is
unacceptable we could eliminate it from further discussion.
3. I don't think there is any way to "intelligently" select from 100 or so
submissions. We need to bring this to top 5-10 and employ any formal voting
only after that
4. Each submission should consist of:
   a) primary variation(s)
   b) secondary variations (we could specify which color combinations of
colors/ slogans to use)
   c) icon variation
   d) example page with this logo applied to both header and body

I don't think we are in a hurry to jump to something that is just better
that current one. May be we could find one that at least acceptable by
majority.

Gennadiy