steve at asklater.com
Tue Dec 20 12:02:19 UTC 2011
On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:54 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 20/12/11 11:44, SteveCoast wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>> There are many reasons why this logo thread hasn't worked so smoothly, but
>>> I'd pick out two differences. First, there's not really much community
>>> buy-in for a new logo.
>> So to be clear in your comparison here, you feel there is community buy-in for putting company logos on OSM?
> Just to be clear about one thing, the MQ logo was not something that was discussed at all when we were considering the MQ layer for inclusion on the site. I can't say nobody considered it when voting but it certainly wasn't part of the discussion.
> All we discussed was the actual map rendering, and how it aligned with the criteria set by strategic.
> We were aware that attribution would be required, but the fact that the preferred attribution included an image was something I that probably discovered later when I actually went to add the layer and looked up the preferred attribution.
Thanks for being so open about what happened Tom.
I'm really not bothered either way that much, I'm solely interested in the process. I'm not even really interested if what happened with that logo is "good" or "bad".
The rub is that you were able completely in isolation to make a change of that significance, deploy it and hit little flak. It's clear that I could not do that, for one because I don't have credentials to do so, for another perhaps you are more trusted because you are around in the UK more, spend more social time with key people and so on? I'm interested that let's say I start another project, and it was magically successful what should I do to still retain that kind of command and control?
More information about the osmf-talk