From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
David Abrahams wrote:
Well, now Joel and Jeff Garland have both told me by private mail that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a discussion about what's worth voting for, and I am basically convinced. I think certain aspects of the logo are more important than others and should be considered. But before I start blurting out any specifics, let's hear from the group. Is there any reason we shouldn't talk about how to choose? We do almost everything at boost by public consensus. Why not this time?
I think it's beneficial to discuss this stuff here. For example, I really like logo XXX, but I think the current background color makes it a poor choice. We've already tentatively agreed that color changes can be made after acceptance, but if I find out that people who voted for XXX love the current background color, then I'm I'm inclined not to vote for it since it likely won't be changed after acceptance.
Not everyone thinks of the same things, so what one person notices may actually be important to another. Its mention in the public forum can be a valuable new criterion others may then choose to apply and, thus, sway votes in a positive way. Thus, I'm in favor of open discussion on the list. The real issue, though, is how to vote in light of the discussion. The vote isn't just up or down as with a review. As Jonathan's comments allude to, one might vote for log N, but only if the color is changed to C or the wording is changed to ABC. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee of the desired outcome, so if one votes for something with caveats, is that vote reversed or can it be revised it if those caveats are not met? Things get really complicated. Also, the voting methodology mentioned on the logo page said nothing about public discussion of desired alterations to make a given logo acceptable. If we choose to go that route, shouldn't we get approval from all of those that submitted logos? Let's remember that the reason we're voting is to get what we, collectively, think is the best logo for Boost. That includes subjective and objective criteria. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;