 |
 |
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Nicolas Morin <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:56 PM, wally grotophorst <[log in to unmask] > >wrote: > > > I'll risk ostracism and admit that I think this concern with a logo is a > > little too corporate for my sensibilities. > > But then that'd be part of the guidelines given to the designer: the logo > shouldn't look too corporate if it's to represent what the code4lib > community is about... > Nicolas > > Actually, his beef appears to be with the group's concern itself, regardless of any logo produced. Is that a correct interpretation, Wally? It would be a logical entailment that if the group can't consider producing a logo, it either goes on without one or maybe "lucks" into having one (or several, perhaps of varying quality) with some unstable *de facto*consensus. To me, the results of this approach tend to look amateurish (including my own). I think code4lib should have a quality logo, and therefore should have an open and deterministic process for producing and selecting one. This fairly rudimentary level of organization really has nothing to do with corporateness. My family picks the photo they want to sent out with the Christmas cards, but that doesn't make us a corporation. If there is a persuasive case to be made *against* pursuing a logo for the group, please consider now the time to make it... --joe atzberger