<br>On 11/9/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jeff Spaleta</b> <<a href="mailto:jspaleta@gmail.com">jspaleta@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>1) very free-form brain-storming discussion with lots of crazy crap<br> from this debate comes a sense of bounds as to constraints on the<br>solution space.</blockquote><div><br>
I thought we did that. We had puppies and goats and periodic tables and
all sorts of stuff flying around. The bounds were things like "we're
sticking to blue" and "no hats".<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">2) applying the constraints, task a team or individual to spin up 2<br>or 3 solutions which individually meet the constraints but provide different
<br>interpretations as to mix of important themes. </blockquote><div><br>
We did that too, before and after Matt's design. After his design there
were some suggestions made (make the f look more like an f,
pronounce the infinity symbol more). Of the community submitted
variations on Matt's design, the only ones near professional enough to
even consider were the ones from earlier this week that looks like rain
dropping into a pond. If you mean that Matt or Red Hat should have
produced more than one version, I think that would have only encouraged
apples to oranges discussions. You simply can't look at a nike style
swoop v. Adidas three stripes, and start a discussion about which is
"better" and make any sense of it. RH took the requirements, distilled
the high points of teh discussion and likely went over tons of
iterations internally. Someone had to make final cut or or we'd all
still be explaining to new list members that a blue hat with a puppy in
it wasn't gonna fly.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">3) focused feedback discussion on those specific 2 or 3 choices.</blockquote><div>
<br>
I don't know that this was run any differently than say deciding which
packages to include in Core. The people who cared were consulted. Those
who cared the most, gave the most feedback. But at the end of the day,
this is a legal issue as well as a branding issue, and RH is the sugar
daddy, so it's their call. They have to hire the lawyers to protect it,
they have to live with it as an extension of their brand. When you
compare RH sales to their market cap, you realize their brand is worth
a couple of billion dollars. So I think they could have handled the
task very well with out without the immense and multi-month
consultation they facilitated about it. And if this was about the
software, and not about tradmarks and legal issues and marketing and
branding I would have welcomed a massive referendum. But it is about
all those things as well as making everyone feel as included as we can.<br>
<br>
> If we fell down in this discussion, its in the fact that we only had<br>
> one draft for consideration which met the constraints at step 2.<br>
<br>
I dunno, I saw 5-6 designs come out after Matt's. He doesn't have to
produce multiple logos for us to have seen multiple logos. Now, we
stopped posting all of them at some point I noticed, but we had an
awful lot of input and opportunity in the last several months to
register our feelings. <br>
<br>
--jeremy<br>
<span id="e_1077697898ccaa23_2"></span></div></div><br>