Open Stack

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 19:54 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2017-02-16 14:09:53 -0500 (-0500), Dan Prince wrote:
>> [...]
>>> This isn't about aligning anything. It is about artistic control.
>>> The
>>> foundation wants to have icons their way playing the "community
>>> card"
>>> to make those who had icons they like conform. It is clear you buy
>>> into
>>> this.
>>> 
>>> Each team will have its own mascot anyway so does it really matter
>>> if
>>> there is some deviation in the mix? I think not. We have a mascot
>>> we
>>> like. It even fits the general requirements for OpenStack mascots
>>> so
>>> all we are arguing about here is artistic style really. I say let
>>> the
>>> developers have some leverage in this category... what is the harm
>>> really?
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> You're really reading far too much conspiracy into this. Keep in
>> mind that this was coming from the foundation's marketing team, and
>> while they've been very eager to interface with the community on
>> this effort they may have failed to some degree in explaining their
>> reasons (which as we all know leaves a vacuum where conspiracy
>> theories proliferate).
>> 
>> As I understand things there are some pages on the
>> foundation-controlled www.openstack.org site where they want to
>> refer to various projects/teams and having a set of icons
>> representing them was a desire of the designers for that site, to
>> make it more navigable and easier to digest. They place significant
>> importance on consistency and aesthetics, and while that doesn't
>> necessarily match my personal utilitarian nature I can at least
>> understand their position on the matter. Rather than just words or
>> meaningless symbols as icons they thought it would be compelling to
>> base those icons on mascots, but to maintain the aesthetic of the
>> site the specific renderings needed to follow some basic guidelines.
>> They could have picked mascots at random out of the aether to use
>> there, but instead wanted to solicit input from the teams whose work
>> these would represent so that they might have some additional
>> special meaning to the community at large.
>> 
>> As I said earlier in the thread, if you have existing art you like
>> then use that in your documentation, in the wiki, on team tee-shirts
>> you make, et cetera. The goal is not to take those away. This is a
>> simple need for the marketing team and foundation Web site designers
>> to have art they can use for their own purposes which meets their
>> relatively strict design aesthetics... and if that art is also
>> something the community wants to use, then all the better but it's
>> in no way mandatory. The foundation has no direct control over
>> community members' choices here, nor have they attempted to pretend
>> otherwise that I've seen.
> 
> And there is that rub again. There is implied along with this pressure
> to adopt the new logo. If you don't you'll get a blank space as a sort
> of punishment for going your own way. As Monty said directly... they
> want conformance and cohesion over team identity.
> 
> Read the initial replies on this thread. Almost every single person
> besides (Flavio and Monty) preferred to keep the original TripleO
> mascot. Same thing on the Ironic thread as far as I can tell (those
> devs almost all initially preferred the old mascot before they were
> talked out of it.). And then you wore them down. Keep asking the same
> question again and again and I guess over time people stop caring.
> 

FWIW, I think we all still prefer the older mascot, and will use it for our normal contexts. I changed my vote on the logo because I think we have more important things to bike shed over other than logo designs :).

-Jay

> Its all just silliness really. Why the foundation got involved in this
> mascot business to begin with and didn't just leave it to the
> individual projects.
> 
> And again. Not a great time to be talking about any of this. My sense
> of urgency is largely based on the fact that Emilien sent out an
> official team stance on this. I wasn't part of that... so apologies for
> being late to this conversation.
> 
> Dan 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev