jza wrote:I am sorry but what you are suggesting is a 72hrs timeline on mailinglist then 72hrs on bugzilla then 72 on forums. The thread was started on Sunday EST we are on thursday. Its well beyond the period.
floris v wrote:Well, many volunteers here don't regularly visit the mailing lists.
lgusaas wrote:jza wrote:I am sorry but what you are suggesting is a 72hrs timeline on mailinglist then 72hrs on bugzilla then 72 on forums. The thread was started on Sunday EST we are on thursday. Its well beyond the period.
There were questions raised here, on the mailing list, and on the bug report about the colour of the orb being too light. No corrections were made before it was arbitrarily changed.
Hagar Delest wrote:Anyway, I don't think we have much choice. Nobody has proposed any alternative. So I'm not against the already made change.
However, there is still the problem with the color of the orb logo that is not right.
Does it mean that we need to change the background of the banner so that we have the right set of colors?
jza wrote:No proposal or alternative were given either. For me, a comment saying something without offering an alternative means, that the original proposal will remain until a further solution is offered -- how can we evaluate if there is nothing to evaluate from?
pescetti wrote:About the decisional process: it is clear that Alexandro's header had been pushed to the forums (on the eve of a system-wide upgrade, moreover) in error. No consensus had been reached, no concerns had been addressed.
Until there is a consensus, the status quo prevails: so the logo in both the internal forums and the homepage has now been reverted to what it looked like before this change. And the change should never have happened: it was inappropriate that Alexandro asked, it was wrong that the admin applied the change without notice or without a quick check here or on the mailing list. I trust this won't happen again.
Does the revert mean that the discussion about the logo is over, or that Alexandro's proposal is ruled out? Not at all. And I'll happily continue the conversation on that.
The revert just means that we take community processes very seriously. An important feature of the community self-governance is to respect the decisional processes. A decision takes a minimum of 72 hours (to give everybody the possibility to comment) and can take much longer (several weeks, hundreds of e-mails). Any attempt to bypass the processes is insulting for the other community members and must be avoided or, when it slips through like it happened this time, reverted.
jani wrote:But I think the main question should be answered first. Should www, wiki, forum and extensions have the same header/footer.
andrew.rist wrote:I really like the proposal by jza:
Postby jza » Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:12 pm
The one change I would make is to change the background to white - this matches the current general AOO site look.
jza wrote:I didn't create or coded this design, janIV tweak the conversation to focus on the whole header (not just the logo which is what this discussion is about) to all the sites.
jza wrote:This is completely out of the scope of the proposal, plus there is no patch (nor will there be) anytime soon. Please read the bug report and dont try to change it.
FYI Currently the logo is blue on blue, the previous logo used the same colors as the current ones.
Is this just a tactic to delay things until oblivious? you just tried to stop the wiki proposal that hasn't received any comments on the mailing list this whole time.
lgusaas wrote:jza wrote:This is completely out of the scope of the proposal, plus there is no patch (nor will there be) anytime soon. Please read the bug report and dont try to change it.
FYI Currently the logo is blue on blue, the previous logo used the same colors as the current ones.
Is this just a tactic to delay things until oblivious? you just tried to stop the wiki proposal that hasn't received any comments on the mailing list this whole time.
Why do you keep cramming your proposal down people's throats? You changed the logo before without consensus. It was changed back. When someone objects to your tactics you accuse them of "delaying things". This is not your fiefdom. Your way is not the "Apache way".
jza wrote:The logo was change with consensus. It was change back because of the SVN staging based on a code freeze from several days before done by infra.
Is it possible that you work on your own and don't communicate with others here on the list?
This images are not known, not discussed, not approved not anything... Why should they be used at all?
If you want to join any effort and collaboration on further new images using the new logo, you are invited to do do via the list and with others. If you don't want this it' fine as well but don't check in or overwrite any existing logo of images without discussion ...
Juergen
lgusaas wrote:jza wrote:The logo was change with consensus. It was change back because of the SVN staging based on a code freeze from several days before done by infra.
Bullshit. Quit making stuff up. See this earlier post on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=50&t=63523&p=282792#p282436
Also this comment on the mailing list from Juergen Schmidt at the start of this header fiasco.Is it possible that you work on your own and don't communicate with others here on the list?
This images are not known, not discussed, not approved not anything... Why should they be used at all?
If you want to join any effort and collaboration on further new images using the new logo, you are invited to do do via the list and with others. If you don't want this it' fine as well but don't check in or overwrite any existing logo of images without discussion ...
Juergen
Now, why don't you go........
jza wrote:I replied to juergen and precetti, quote that. They both kept quiet after that.
pescetti wrote:To start agreeing on something concrete, could we at least agree about the following?
1) Hagar's proposal to update the "download" logo (page footer) seems a no-brainer.
Any objections to that?
2) Can the two logos at http://forum.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ be consolidated into one? I mean: they are now very different and I see no reason for that. I'm not saying they must be 100% identical (one is a logo, one is a full header), but they should become similar enough to discuss them as if they were the same graphic concept: once we agree on the header, we will extract the logo from it.
pescetti wrote:2) Can the two logos at http://forum.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ be consolidated into one? I mean: they are now very different and I see no reason for that. I'm not saying they must be 100% identical (one is a logo, one is a full header)
jza wrote:Header was never proposed in it's entirety nor there is no header patch.
It makes sense we re-use already an approved header,
jza wrote:Header was never proposed in it's entirety nor there is no header patch.
Hagar Delest wrote:jza wrote:Header was never proposed in it's entirety nor there is no header patch.
Please don't go that way again.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests