steve at asklater.com
Tue Dec 20 11:41:03 UTC 2011
On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
> On 20 December 2011 11:23, SteveCoast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> How did we end up with a power structure or community guideline or whatever where secret ballots at the MQ office on whether to put the MQ logo on OSM is okay, but open debate over thinking about a logo or design is fraught with difficulty, paranoia and clashing opinions on the merits of even trying something?
> The process Tom Hughes described may be imperfect, but at least it uses the structures of the democratically accountable OpenStreetMap Foundation.
> We don't need to be paranoid about the fact that decisions were taken in the MapQuest offices because the decision followed the Foundation guidelines, and there are processes to challenge it such as voting out the Board or changing guidelines.
That makes sense, but it suggests a different approach. What we should do with the design is not have any open debate, but perhaps some kind of ruling or guideline from the SWG which is loosely interpreted by a Design Working Group who by secret ballot decide what the logo should be. Would that be acceptable?
> I am enjoying the debate over the logo and web site redesign, but in this case there appears to be no democratically accountable body starting the process and filtering feedback to the designers.
Well the process was started by the foundation at the meeting in seattle, so I don't think the first part holds.
If you have some better system that will be available in the next, say, 3 months which would be more democratic than crowdSpring I'd love to use it so long as it generated actual interest and designs.
More information about the osmf-talk