I want a virtual Fedora coffee table book and you are going to help me get it.

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Russell Harrison <rtlm10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do agree they make for better pictures for a coffee table book.  I
> was kind of thinking that only a select number of things would be
> allowed.  Say only the components from the logo for example.  Anyway
>lets put that to the side and concentrate on raw pictures.  We can
> always dust it off if there aren't enough submissions coming in.

Nope fully disagree. I think we should be a specific as possible...
and ask people to use a specific object or shape.  I think the more
abstract the pictures are..the less cohesive the concept.  The point
is not to collect random candids of people, just because they are
people, even if they are our people. The point isn't to encourage
people to be wacky and expressive in how they take their pictures.
People could already be taking pictures like that and sharing them. I
don't see the value in archiving all possible pictures from a project
marketing standpoint. The point of this specific proposal it to draw
attention to the symbolic relationships between people and our ideals.
One object..repeated over and over and over again. Not 3 objects or 5
objects..or random objects. We stress the shared commitment through
repetition of the single object as a single repeated symbol.

>It doesn't matter what the parameters are things are going to have to
>be thrown out.  To have a quality final product we actually want to
>have to throw out the vast majority of submissions.  Maybe something
>like a gallery site (already in the repos) would allow folks to vote
>on pictures so the choice wouldn't be a massive effort for one person
>or a few people.

Again I disagree. The more constrained the parameters the more quality
we get coming in the door and the less work for everyone who wants to
make use of these images as tools for specific marketing goals.  Again
these pictures are not meant to be be expressive...they are meant as
tools to meet a specific goal...and as such it is only fair to state
upfront to the people creating the tools what the constraints are.  We
have package submission criteria for a reason. Those quality assurance
reasons are just as valid for content submissions.

Having a big pile of candids that are all over the place in terms of
composition and style that we can't easily sort is just a big garbage
pile.... not unlike the a big pile of random desktop wallpapers that
some sites collect for users to make use of.  I think its important
that we give our contributors the responsibility to submit appropriate
material. And we do that by be explicit about what we are looking for.
 Don't open up a submission call to on all possible potential uses for
images. Be narrow and stay focused...and ask the same of the
submitters. If in the future we come up with another reason to collect
images, then we do it again with different criteria and constraints.

If we develop a gallery process which expects people to drop in low
quality material.. is that really an appropriate methodology to
encourage the type of contribution we want to see project wide? I
don't think so. If we do it, we do it in a constrained and tight way
that encourages and expects people to submit material which is
unlikely to be thrown out based on quality.  I'd much rather hold a
repository of quality images that meet well defined submission
criteria then to have a big pile of images that we feel compelled to
keep simply because they were submitted and we'd feel bad throwing
away a good faith submission.

-jef


I think your are also thinking that we only have to have one set of
physically published images. That may not actually make sense, since
we are as global as we all. We might not be able to do a single
official publication to meet the underlying goal. We may very well use
an on-demand process, such that different project subgroups could have
their own mix of images in the publishable material they use, beyond
just a single coffee table book.  If we in the US found a way to get
candids of public officials holding the symbol of our ideals, that'd
be great for a US book...but not so useful for say Brazil... and
vice-versa.


> I wasn't aware of that.  I was under the impression that objects in
> public spaces were fair game.

Public property or government property is one thing, private property
is another.  For example a private university campus like say
Princeton has a number of statues and pretty buildings. And while you
are welcome to walk around and enjoy the scenery, even take pictures
for personal use, you may not have the right to use images of them
commercially without express permission of the University.


-jef