David Abrahams wrote:
Joel <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Joel <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Comments? Objections?
<<My, this contest was not as simple as it seemed at first :P>>
This doesn't directly address the issue, You may not remember this but there was a growing consensus at the end of the contest that we probably ought to try again given everything we had learned... as such I didn't bother to send you my revised votes. I don't know if there are any others in this category, but I would certainly vote differently now that the commentary is over, and if there is any chance the result will "stick" I probably should have paid more attention to the revised vote thing. Too late?
Never too late.
I take it that you want a new vote for this round to take into consideration the discussions we had here?
You offered to accept new votes for people who had already voted but who changed their minds due to discussions after their votes were cast. I never sent you mine; that's all.
Again, if its the consensus, so be it. However, I re-read the commentaries but can't seem to see a consensus regarding re-voting for this round. I do see a consensus on a second round contest. I highly suggest we conclude this round and move on to the second round. The winner emerging from this round seems to be no. 67. Unless there are some more bugs found in Jason's tallying program, I think we have a winner. Alas, there are some trademark problems with it. Yet, as noted by Reid Sweatman and I seem to agree, the logo might be salvagable. One possibility is to hire a pro (as you hinted) and tweak the logo to perfection, thus still maintaining the spirit of the contest while avoiding trademark problems in the process.
If that is the concensus, so be it. I think Christopher's voting procedures are sound except for the acceptance of new entries. I think we should reserve that for the second round. I am also all for holding a second contest given everything we had learned so far.
I was under the impression that we continue with this round and hold a second round immediately after.
That was my understanding too.
There's nothing stated in the logo page that the winning logo will replace the current logo anyway, so we have a free hand on what to do with it as long as the promised prize is awarded.
I move that we all give the Boost founders (Beman, Dave, etc) the absolute right to decide on whether to accept or reject the winning logo of the first (and subsequent) rounds as a replacement of the current. They deserve that right.
I think it would be much clearer to say "the Boost moderators," if you want to do something like that. "The founders" are an amorphous group, many of whom aren't even around Boost anymore.
Understood. Perhaps you guys should come up with a revised "history of boost" page that gives us a glimpse of what actually happened. It would surely be an interesting read. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net