Re: New Logo Discussion

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-17 23:05:21

On 7/17/24 23:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> 
> Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:
> 
> 1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the
> trademark
> 
> 2. No change

2. No change.

>From the personal preference standpoint, I actually like the current
logo more than the proposed new one. I think, it better represents the
modular nature of Boost. Yes, Boost is a *collection* of libraries,
despite that it may appear monolithic to some users, which is something
we are moving away from. And the current logo is simply more
aesthetically pleasing to me.

I should note that the current logo is used as a base for a number of
library-specific logos, which play nicely together:

https://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos

I don't see the proposed logo as being composable in the same way.

No, "B" being the first letter of "Boost" does not give points to the
new logo. There are plenty examples of logos being not letters at all,
and yet those logos are very recognizable among the target audience. A
few examples are Windows, Ubuntu, GNU, GitHub, StackOverflow. The
current logo may not be as widely recognized as some of those examples,
but I don't see how changing the logo would fix that, even if that is
something that needs to be fixed in the first place. If anything,
changing the logo reduces Boost's recognition.

>From the legal standpoint, I'm not even remotely familiar with the
trademark law, so I cannot evaluate the legal consequences of the logo
being owned by The C++ Alliance. But I do not like that an unrelated
organization would control the logo and would need to be consulted
regarding the usage of the logo.

And I just don't see the sufficient reasons for changing the logo. You
haven't stated the problem that changing the logo is supposed to fix,
other than the supposed perception by the public, which I will address
below.

> One might rightly ask, "why not just start using the old mark often and
> consistently?" This is better than what we are doing now (which is nothing)
> but suffers from the problem that the old mark is associated with old
> things which represent stagnation. A new mark, with accompanying guidance
> on usage, transmits needed momentum to our Boost renaissance by informing
> the public that things are now changing for the better.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this marketing jabbering. Fundamentally,
Boost has not changed. It always was, is, and hopefully will be a
collection of peer-reviewed C++ libraries, and the current logo
represents this quite well.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "renaissance", but as far as
I'm concerned there was no stagnation to begin with. Perhaps, you refer
to us switching to C++11 as a baseline or better CMake support? In my
view, those are, while important, but still incremental steps in Boost's
evolution. Is it the new website? It's status isn't clear yet, and with
the dispute between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation its future
is uncertain (and this situation, BTW, does *not* improve the public
image of Boost). Perhaps, there is some social side of things that I'm
not aware of? But frankly, public relations are not my area of interest
anyway. So, I'm probably not the kind of person you want to ask for
opinion on social or marketing matters.

In any case, whether there is a perception problem associated with the
current logo or not, I'm not convinced that changing the logo would
solve it. You can draw whatever logo you like, but if some people don't
like or use Boost for whatever reason (which, I'm pretty sure, is not
the logo), they won't like it more with the new logo either. The best we
can do to fix this is to make Boost actually better in ways that affect
those people - as long as we agree that this would be a change for the
better. And, of course, there are people who will not like us no matter
what, and that's fine, too. There's no point in trying to appeal to
everyone.

With that said, I can understand that you may want to "refresh" the
current logo to better fit in the new website or something. That would
be a more reasonable approach, IMO, as it would preserve the basic
design and spirit of the logo, maintain the recognition among the
community (however low you might think it is) and keep it compatible
with derivative library-specific logos, but still freshen it up a bit
and make it blend better with the new website.