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 16:55:49
On Sunday 31 January 2010 10:33:56 pm Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > On 01/31/2010 02:56 PM, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> >> Wasn't there a "rejected proposal for" logo? I guess it was dropped
> >> for the same reason that "under construction for" was renamed to
> >> "under construction". How about "in preparation for" and "rejected
> >> by"? These would at least make a statement about the relation to
> >> boost.
> > IMHO, the "rejected" logo makes a disservice for the library, as it
> > marks it as something of inappropriate quality for Boost in eyes of
> > users. Therefore I'd like it to be rephrased to something more
> > neutral, such as "unofficial extension" or something of that kind.
> LOL! I can't imagine anyone would proudly proclaim "my software was
> rejected by boost!" If they are rejected by boost though, they have no
> business showing a boost logo associated with their software (unless
> they're using boost, then they could have the using boost logo).
> I agree that things like using should be blue. I feel that things that
> say, "I'm not a part of boost yet but I want to be", should be in red so
> that people notice that this isn't boost.
> I'm glad to see some good conversation here. What's the difference
> between "proposed for" and "under construction for", and is it a big
> enough difference to have both?
No I don't think so. The idea was to somehow capture the state of the
submission. "Under construction for" was saying it was not ready for
submission. "Proposed for" or "Proposal for" was for saying this is the
I have changed my mind and suggest to not use the logo for communicating
details of submission or release state. Other means are simpler and better.
I am thinking there are 3 valid use-cases that deserve logo variants.
Official boost - the original logo
Preliminary Boost - need placeholder logo in proposed documentation for
planned and actual submissions for review, this logo should not lead to the
misinterpretation that this is official Boost.
Using Boost - probably a smaller almost icon sized logo that does not take
over the users website :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk