Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-31 15:36:20
On Sunday 31 January 2010 04:26:32 pm Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > > I think the original proposal comes from
> > > http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/01/161356.php and the
> > Yes, I read that post, but it misses one (quite common, I believe) case,
> > when the rejected library continues to live outside of Boost, with
> > little or no intention to resubmit the review. It is still designed to
> > fit into Boost infrastructure, so I don't think that "powered by" or
> > "using" variants are adequate.
> Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to split one of the use cases into many logos
> with different meanings.
You may be right. The essence of the whole discussion is protection of the
official logo. It somehow - with my help I think - became a discussion of a
logo per state of a submission or use-case.
It may be that documentation using a Boost logo should somehow formally state
the relationship the library has with boost. But the logo may not be the best
tool for that. Instead, if the library has a formal state according to Boost
submission, review or release processes this can be stated clearly in a
mandatory legend similar to the listings in:
The First Release and Standard fields are only used if appropriate. For other
libraries other fields apply. E.g. for submissions, the state of the
submission would be stated in the legend, etc.
> Perhaps one "draft for boost" logo would be
Perhaps - I dislike draft though. I kind of think you should be able to make
draft documentation for new releases at any time. Not only before it is
accepted an in an official boost release. For drafts, you can mark the hole
thing with a watermark, or something else radical - you don't need to mess
with the logo.
> so it would be clear that the library is somehow associated with
> boost, but not an accepted boost library.
I agree that this should be the main purpose of the logo variants. I guess I
got carried away with a logo variant for any occasion. One logo for
submissions, and one for users are probably all the variants needed.
> And a rejected library can just
> keep using that "draft for boost" logo, if it wants to.
Even here "Proposal for boost" is better than "Draft". A proposal is still a
proposal after it has been rejected. A submission for review should not be a
draft. Any of these logo variants becomes kind of meaningless though if a
maintained library is clearly not going to be resubmitted. Such libraries
with continued active development would probably move away from the logo
anyway, so this is no real life problem.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk