"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> wrote in message news:d0oki6$v17$1@sea.gmane.org...
David Abrahams wrote:
"Jonathan Turkanis" writes:
Reid Sweatman wrote:
But it would have been my first choice, too; ought to be some way to rework it while keeping the essence.
Unfortunately, the contest is closed now. I don't think we can open up one of the logos for major redesign without doing it for the others.
Maybe we should do that. We've learned a lot since this started.
This would be fine with me.
I don't have a clear winner(s) either. None of the submission as it is wouldn't be acceptable IMO. I also support second round. Couple notes in this regard: 1. We need to specify our hmm.. priorities/criteria's in a some written form on logo contest page. We could update this list based on discussions and apply them to existing submissions to eliminate failing submission from further discussion. 2. We should continue discussion. No need to wait for "voting" stage to express opinions on submission. If there is a consensus that submission is unacceptable we could eliminate it from further discussion. 3. I don't think there is any way to "intelligently" select from 100 or so submissions. We need to bring this to top 5-10 and employ any formal voting only after that 4. Each submission should consist of: a) primary variation(s) b) secondary variations (we could specify which color combinations of colors/ slogans to use) c) icon variation d) example page with this logo applied to both header and body I don't think we are in a hurry to jump to something that is just better that current one. May be we could find one that at least acceptable by majority. Gennadiy