<div>
Both the new mark and the copyright page look very slick. Clean, friendly, inviting. Great work!
</div>
<div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>Marc Regan</div><div>Cofounder, <a href="http://mapkin.co">Mapkin</a></div><div><br></div></div>
<p style="color: #A0A0A8;">On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<span><div><div><div>Kathleen Danielson wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the</div><div>design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move </div><div>forward with using the attribution mark (since it addresses an </div><div>immediate problem)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Definitely. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that. If you wait</div><div>for 100% consensus on talk@ you'll never get anything done. And, as ever,</div><div>stuff can be fine-tuned after initial deployment.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Richard</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>View this message in context: <a href="http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-updated-OSM-Attribution-Mark-was-contributor-mark-tp5758043p5758370.html">http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-updated-OSM-Attribution-Mark-was-contributor-mark-tp5758043p5758370.html</a></div><div>Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at <a href="http://Nabble.com">Nabble.com</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>talk mailing list</div><div><a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a></div><div><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a></div></div></div></span>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>