Hello everyone. I hope everyone is coping as well as possible in the current events.
There has been a collaborative design effort to update the CentOS logo and brand, and we are on the agenda of the next CentOS board meeting (in a week) to present an update to the current CentOS branding for approval. We are excited to be at this point.
In the spirit of openness, and because we are human, it could be that some of us have missed the earlier mail about this [ https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-January/036517.html] So, I am announcing this yet once more, to make sure everyone is aware of our progress, the upcoming decision, and has a final chance to voice possible concerns and give feedback.
I want to avoid sending attachments to the mailing list, so please see the blog post i wrote on January which summarizes the process and features the proposed logo and brand updates: https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
Also, the issue on git.centos.org can be interesting reading for anyone interested in how we have reached this point: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The feedback we have received so far has been positive and constructive, so let us know of any concerns you might have.
Best regards, Tuomas Kuosmanen
Hi everyone,
I hope this email finds you well and at some ease, in the midst of all things.
Thanks Tuomas for keeping this conversation going, as we all work on improving how the CentOS Project makes decisions in the open as a community. In this long-ish email I am going to describe the open decision process the Board of Directors wants to see followed for this logo work. The same process can be applied to the website redesign, too.
= Context
With apologies for any confusion I caused for Tuomas, Alain, and Simas--who have held an excellent open design discussion ( https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1 )--I am making a few minor adjustments in the plan to slow things down a bit. To make sure that people across the CentOS community are at least aware of what is being worked on.
I think some people with a stake in this project are not fully aware of the proposed changes, and need an opportunity especially as participants and contributors to give input, feedback, and design thinking toward the final logo.
It hasn't been clear so far where decisions should be made, who chooses what goes into the final design, and who says that design should be the new logo. Or even if there should be a new logo at all!
The unclear part is largely because the CentOS Board hasn't communicated our intentions clearly, I'm sorry about that, and I'd like to fix that here.
The process the CentOS Board wants should look like the one below. We're asking the three designers who have done the work so far (areguera, brokenkeyframe, tigert) to lead this discussion. I am the Director responsible for supporting that discussion and helping it get to a conclusion.
The goal is to have a design that the community likes, understands, and accepts, which the Board of Directors can basically rubber-stamp, i.e., approve without further discussion/argument. (Expect some Directors to provide input as community members, that is how we get our voices heard in the design decision process.)
= Open design decision process
0. I have taken the logo off the Board agenda for the next meeting, and won't put it back on until after this community has concluded its process.
1. For the next $time_period (perhaps until 08 April?) is the second-to-last window for input on the design, and suggestions for any new designs are also considered.
2. For two (or three?) weeks after that ~08 April date, the current and new designs undergo iterations between the designers. This includes the designers involved so far plus anyone else who comes along willing to do the work.
3. During those design iteration weeks, the process includes a robust back-and-forth between the designers that the rest of the community can observe. Designers set their own tolerance for how much feedback they want during this time window. They may choose, for example, to do a daily survey of design iterations using a survey tool to help them track the sentiment without wading through comments.
4. At the end of the design iteration weeks, the designers send back to the community the design(s) they feel are worthy of further consideration or decision. These may be the final design suggestions, depending on how the collective designers feel.
5. For two weeks following, interested community members are involved in helping choose the final design. Or those are two weeks of feedback, followed by another design iteration window, depending on the consensus of the designers and the interested community. I recommend we only schedule up to two iterations, and welcome the insight of the waaaaay more experienced designers as to what they want.
6. The final decision is approved (rubber-stamped) by the Board; I conclude the trademark work in parallel.
The above can be slowed down even further -- it might be too fast with the way things are right now in the world; there is no need to rush, we just don't want an open-ended process. It's better to set a deadline and adjust it outward, at this point.
What do you all think about this?
Best - Karsten
On 3/18/20 5:27 AM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
Hello everyone. I hope everyone is coping as well as possible in the current events.
There has been a collaborative design effort to update the CentOS logo and brand, and we are on the agenda of the next CentOS board meeting (in a week) to present an update to the current CentOS branding for approval. We are excited to be at this point.
In the spirit of openness, and because we are human, it could be that some of us have missed the earlier mail about this [https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-January/036517.html] So, I am announcing this yet once more, to make sure everyone is aware of our progress, the upcoming decision, and has a final chance to voice possible concerns and give feedback.
I want to avoid sending attachments to the mailing list, so please see the blog post i wrote on January which summarizes the process and features the proposed logo and brand updates: https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
Also, the issue on git.centos.org http://git.centos.org can be interesting reading for anyone interested in how we have reached this point: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The feedback we have received so far has been positive and constructive, so let us know of any concerns you might have.
Best regards, Tuomas Kuosmanen
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 3/20/20 2:46 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
Hi everyone,
I hope this email finds you well and at some ease, in the midst of all things.
Thanks Tuomas for keeping this conversation going, as we all work on improving how the CentOS Project makes decisions in the open as a community. In this long-ish email I am going to describe the open decision process the Board of Directors wants to see followed for this logo work. The same process can be applied to the website redesign, too.
= Context
With apologies for any confusion I caused for Tuomas, Alain, and Simas--who have held an excellent open design discussion ( https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1 )--I am making a few minor adjustments in the plan to slow things down a bit. To make sure that people across the CentOS community are at least aware of what is being worked on.
I think some people with a stake in this project are not fully aware of the proposed changes, and need an opportunity especially as participants and contributors to give input, feedback, and design thinking toward the final logo.
It hasn't been clear so far where decisions should be made, who chooses what goes into the final design, and who says that design should be the new logo. Or even if there should be a new logo at all!
The unclear part is largely because the CentOS Board hasn't communicated our intentions clearly, I'm sorry about that, and I'd like to fix that here.
The process the CentOS Board wants should look like the one below. We're asking the three designers who have done the work so far (areguera, brokenkeyframe, tigert) to lead this discussion. I am the Director responsible for supporting that discussion and helping it get to a conclusion.
The goal is to have a design that the community likes, understands, and accepts, which the Board of Directors can basically rubber-stamp, i.e., approve without further discussion/argument. (Expect some Directors to provide input as community members, that is how we get our voices heard in the design decision process.)
= Open design decision process
- I have taken the logo off the Board agenda for the next meeting, and
won't put it back on until after this community has concluded its process.
- For the next $time_period (perhaps until 08 April?) is the
second-to-last window for input on the design, and suggestions for any new designs are also considered.
- For two (or three?) weeks after that ~08 April date, the current and
new designs undergo iterations between the designers. This includes the designers involved so far plus anyone else who comes along willing to do the work.
- During those design iteration weeks, the process includes a robust
back-and-forth between the designers that the rest of the community can observe. Designers set their own tolerance for how much feedback they want during this time window. They may choose, for example, to do a daily survey of design iterations using a survey tool to help them track the sentiment without wading through comments.
- At the end of the design iteration weeks, the designers send back to
the community the design(s) they feel are worthy of further consideration or decision. These may be the final design suggestions, depending on how the collective designers feel.
- For two weeks following, interested community members are involved in
helping choose the final design. Or those are two weeks of feedback, followed by another design iteration window, depending on the consensus of the designers and the interested community. I recommend we only schedule up to two iterations, and welcome the insight of the waaaaay more experienced designers as to what they want.
- The final decision is approved (rubber-stamped) by the Board; I
conclude the trademark work in parallel.
The above can be slowed down even further -- it might be too fast with the way things are right now in the world; there is no need to rush, we just don't want an open-ended process. It's better to set a deadline and adjust it outward, at this point.
What do you all think about this?
Best - Karsten
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
On 3/18/20 5:27 AM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
Hello everyone. I hope everyone is coping as well as possible in the current events.
There has been a collaborative design effort to update the CentOS logo and brand, and we are on the agenda of the next CentOS board meeting (in a week) to present an update to the current CentOS branding for approval. We are excited to be at this point.
In the spirit of openness, and because we are human, it could be that some of us have missed the earlier mail about this [https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-January/036517.html] So, I am announcing this yet once more, to make sure everyone is aware of our progress, the upcoming decision, and has a final chance to voice possible concerns and give feedback.
I want to avoid sending attachments to the mailing list, so please see the blog post i wrote on January which summarizes the process and features the proposed logo and brand updates: https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
Also, the issue on git.centos.org http://git.centos.org can be interesting reading for anyone interested in how we have reached this point: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The feedback we have received so far has been positive and constructive, so let us know of any concerns you might have.
Best regards, Tuomas Kuosmanen
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi everyone
I totally agree with Johnny. We might add a new logo monochrome for certain purposes, but also keep the one we have.
Le Thu Mar 26 2020 16:32:37 GMT+0100 (CET), Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org a écrit :
On 3/20/20 2:46 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
Hi everyone,
I hope this email finds you well and at some ease, in the midst of all things.
Thanks Tuomas for keeping this conversation going, as we all work on improving how the CentOS Project makes decisions in the open as a community. In this long-ish email I am going to describe the open decision process the Board of Directors wants to see followed for this logo work. The same process can be applied to the website redesign, too.
= Context
With apologies for any confusion I caused for Tuomas, Alain, and Simas--who have held an excellent open design discussion ( https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1 )--I am making a few minor adjustments in the plan to slow things down a bit. To make sure that people across the CentOS community are at least aware of what is being worked on.
I think some people with a stake in this project are not fully aware of the proposed changes, and need an opportunity especially as participants and contributors to give input, feedback, and design thinking toward the final logo.
It hasn't been clear so far where decisions should be made, who chooses what goes into the final design, and who says that design should be the new logo. Or even if there should be a new logo at all!
The unclear part is largely because the CentOS Board hasn't communicated our intentions clearly, I'm sorry about that, and I'd like to fix that here.
The process the CentOS Board wants should look like the one below. We're asking the three designers who have done the work so far (areguera, brokenkeyframe, tigert) to lead this discussion. I am the Director responsible for supporting that discussion and helping it get to a conclusion.
The goal is to have a design that the community likes, understands, and accepts, which the Board of Directors can basically rubber-stamp, i.e., approve without further discussion/argument. (Expect some Directors to provide input as community members, that is how we get our voices heard in the design decision process.)
= Open design decision process
- I have taken the logo off the Board agenda for the next meeting, and
won't put it back on until after this community has concluded its process.
- For the next $time_period (perhaps until 08 April?) is the
second-to-last window for input on the design, and suggestions for any new designs are also considered.
- For two (or three?) weeks after that ~08 April date, the current and
new designs undergo iterations between the designers. This includes the designers involved so far plus anyone else who comes along willing to do the work.
- During those design iteration weeks, the process includes a robust
back-and-forth between the designers that the rest of the community can observe. Designers set their own tolerance for how much feedback they want during this time window. They may choose, for example, to do a daily survey of design iterations using a survey tool to help them track the sentiment without wading through comments.
- At the end of the design iteration weeks, the designers send back to
the community the design(s) they feel are worthy of further consideration or decision. These may be the final design suggestions, depending on how the collective designers feel.
- For two weeks following, interested community members are involved in
helping choose the final design. Or those are two weeks of feedback, followed by another design iteration window, depending on the consensus of the designers and the interested community. I recommend we only schedule up to two iterations, and welcome the insight of the waaaaay more experienced designers as to what they want.
- The final decision is approved (rubber-stamped) by the Board; I
conclude the trademark work in parallel.
The above can be slowed down even further -- it might be too fast with the way things are right now in the world; there is no need to rush, we just don't want an open-ended process. It's better to set a deadline and adjust it outward, at this point.
What do you all think about this?
Best - Karsten
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
On 3/18/20 5:27 AM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
Hello everyone. I hope everyone is coping as well as possible in the current events.
There has been a collaborative design effort to update the CentOS logo and brand, and we are on the agenda of the next CentOS board meeting (in a week) to present an update to the current CentOS branding for approval. We are excited to be at this point.
In the spirit of openness, and because we are human, it could be that some of us have missed the earlier mail about this [https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-January/036517.html] So, I am announcing this yet once more, to make sure everyone is aware of our progress, the upcoming decision, and has a final chance to voice possible concerns and give feedback.
I want to avoid sending attachments to the mailing list, so please see the blog post i wrote on January which summarizes the process and features the proposed logo and brand updates: https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
Also, the issue on git.centos.org http://git.centos.org can be interesting reading for anyone interested in how we have reached this point: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The feedback we have received so far has been positive and constructive, so let us know of any concerns you might have.
Best regards, Tuomas Kuosmanen
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
_______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:32:16AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Agreed. There is no point in this change.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
I've got a bright shiny nickel that says that this is a done deal and nothing anyone says is going to have any impact whatsoever. Just like with so many other things that have happened in the recent past.
John
On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the CentOS Project to change _this_ logo?
The designers articulated a number of reasons for the changes they propose.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
I'd like to check that everyone read the discussion between the designers here, because this comment from Johnny and the responses from John Tatt and John Dennison are confusing.
tl;dr https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
full discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The monochrome logo is not additive, it is an evolution of the current logo. The current proposal is not to have a different appearing logo in monochrome than the one in color. They are different logos, resulting in different branding, etc.
I don't see how having two different logos solves any problems, but I do see how it creates a whole lot of new problems.
It is important that feedback here be more than "I don't like it, I don't want change, what we have works fine".
We need to hear:
* What don't you like about the proposed logo in comparison to the existing logo?
* Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change?
* How do we solve the problems with the current logo with the status quo?
Best regards,
- Karsten
On 3/18/20 5:27 AM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
Hello everyone. I hope everyone is coping as well as possible in the current events.
There has been a collaborative design effort to update the CentOS logo and brand, and we are on the agenda of the next CentOS board meeting (in a week) to present an update to the current CentOS branding for approval. We are excited to be at this point.
In the spirit of openness, and because we are human, it could be that some of us have missed the earlier mail about this [https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-January/036517.html] So, I am announcing this yet once more, to make sure everyone is aware of our progress, the upcoming decision, and has a final chance to voice possible concerns and give feedback.
I want to avoid sending attachments to the mailing list, so please see the blog post i wrote on January which summarizes the process and features the proposed logo and brand updates: https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
Also, the issue on git.centos.org http://git.centos.org can be interesting reading for anyone interested in how we have reached this point: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The feedback we have received so far has been positive and constructive, so let us know of any concerns you might have.
Best regards, Tuomas Kuosmanen
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 3/31/20 11:56 AM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the CentOS Project to change _this_ logo?
The designers articulated a number of reasons for the changes they propose.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
I'd like to check that everyone read the discussion between the designers here, because this comment from Johnny and the responses from John Tatt and John Dennison are confusing.
tl;dr https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
full discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The monochrome logo is not additive, it is an evolution of the current logo. The current proposal is not to have a different appearing logo in monochrome than the one in color. They are different logos, resulting in different branding, etc.
I don't see how having two different logos solves any problems, but I do see how it creates a whole lot of new problems.
It is important that feedback here be more than "I don't like it, I don't want change, what we have works fine".
We need to hear:
- What don't you like about the proposed logo in comparison to the
existing logo?
It is not the logo that I helped design 17 years ago.
- Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change?
Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux.
I don't think we need to confuse the brand.
You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows branding.
I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to change it.
That is my opinion .. I get to have my opinion.
If you want to change the logo, change the logo .. but you asked for opinions.
- How do we solve the problems with the current logo with the status quo?
Best regards,
- Karsten
On 3/18/20 5:27 AM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
Hello everyone. I hope everyone is coping as well as possible in the current events.
There has been a collaborative design effort to update the CentOS logo and brand, and we are on the agenda of the next CentOS board meeting (in a week) to present an update to the current CentOS branding for approval. We are excited to be at this point.
In the spirit of openness, and because we are human, it could be that some of us have missed the earlier mail about this [https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-January/036517.html]
So, I am announcing this yet once more, to make sure everyone is aware of our progress, the upcoming decision, and has a final chance to voice possible concerns and give feedback.
I want to avoid sending attachments to the mailing list, so please see the blog post i wrote on January which summarizes the process and features the proposed logo and brand updates: https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
Also, the issue on git.centos.org http://git.centos.org can be interesting reading for anyone interested in how we have reached this point: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The feedback we have received so far has been positive and constructive, so let us know of any concerns you might have.
Best regards, Tuomas Kuosmanen
On 31 Mar 12:46, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 3/31/20 11:56 AM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the CentOS Project to change _this_ logo?
The designers articulated a number of reasons for the changes they propose.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
I'd like to check that everyone read the discussion between the designers here, because this comment from Johnny and the responses from John Tatt and John Dennison are confusing.
tl;dr https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
full discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The monochrome logo is not additive, it is an evolution of the current logo. The current proposal is not to have a different appearing logo in monochrome than the one in color. They are different logos, resulting in different branding, etc.
I don't see how having two different logos solves any problems, but I do see how it creates a whole lot of new problems.
It is important that feedback here be more than "I don't like it, I don't want change, what we have works fine".
We need to hear:
- What don't you like about the proposed logo in comparison to the
existing logo?
It is not the logo that I helped design 17 years ago.
- Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change?
Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux.
I don't think we need to confuse the brand.
You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows branding.
I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to change it.
That is my opinion .. I get to have my opinion.
If you want to change the logo, change the logo .. but you asked for opinions.
First of all I am surprised that Johnny was not included in the previous discussions.
I do not like that the new logo is blue as that color does not really have a personality. It is overrepresented in branding in general IMO, and it is for this reason not really something you can recognize from far away.
Regarding the colors, I don't like the current logo color and I think that if the argument to change is that it can not be embroided, I am all for having the proposed logo to be embroided e.g. on one color but keeping the current color (or modernizing them) for everything web related. Our screens don't have that embroided issue.
On the other hand, I like the curve style, even if it looks a bit more like toys and less like entreprise.
On 3/31/20 1:52 PM, Julien Pivotto wrote:
On 31 Mar 12:46, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 3/31/20 11:56 AM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the CentOS Project to change _this_ logo?
The designers articulated a number of reasons for the changes they propose.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
I'd like to check that everyone read the discussion between the designers here, because this comment from Johnny and the responses from John Tatt and John Dennison are confusing.
tl;dr https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
full discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The monochrome logo is not additive, it is an evolution of the current logo. The current proposal is not to have a different appearing logo in monochrome than the one in color. They are different logos, resulting in different branding, etc.
I don't see how having two different logos solves any problems, but I do see how it creates a whole lot of new problems.
It is important that feedback here be more than "I don't like it, I don't want change, what we have works fine".
We need to hear:
- What don't you like about the proposed logo in comparison to the
existing logo?
It is not the logo that I helped design 17 years ago.
- Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change?
Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux.
I don't think we need to confuse the brand.
You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows branding.
I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to change it.
That is my opinion .. I get to have my opinion.
If you want to change the logo, change the logo .. but you asked for opinions.
First of all I am surprised that Johnny was not included in the previous discussions.
I do not like that the new logo is blue as that color does not really have a personality. It is overrepresented in branding in general IMO, and it is for this reason not really something you can recognize from far away.
Regarding the colors, I don't like the current logo color and I think that if the argument to change is that it can not be embroided, I am all for having the proposed logo to be embroided e.g. on one color but keeping the current color (or modernizing them) for everything web related. Our screens don't have that embroided issue.
On the other hand, I like the curve style, even if it looks a bit more like toys and less like entreprise.
I would be fine adding that logo .. and one of every one monochrome of the primary logo colors .. and one that is rounded with the colors. I don't mind the new shapes.
For those who don't know the CentOS history .. we started out as a sub-project of cAos Linux .. and the logo is shaped like it is because of the symbol for caos (chaos): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos
So .. I am a bit hesitant to change it, because to me it means something.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
...
I would be fine adding that logo .. and one of every one monochrome of the primary logo colors .. and one that is rounded with the colors. I don't mind the new shapes.
For those who don't know the CentOS history .. we started out as a sub-project of cAos Linux .. and the logo is shaped like it is because of the symbol for caos (chaos): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos
So .. I am a bit hesitant to change it, because to me it means something.
I think the chaos symbol comes through more clearly in the new logo -- I actually never noticed it in the older logo.
The multicolored design struck me as perhaps a play on the Microsoft logo.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi Johnny,
I am very aware of the chaos symbol, and if you follow through our discussion in the git thread, we specifically wanted to preserve it, so we ruled out some otherwise interesting ideas.
I think the chaos symbol has a lot of personality and the logo means a lot to the community. It would be foolish to throw that away.
But it's late here, so I will try to reply more thoroughly tomorrow after reading the whole thread.
Take care, Tuomas
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 00:37 Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 3/31/20 1:52 PM, Julien Pivotto wrote:
On 31 Mar 12:46, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 3/31/20 11:56 AM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for
the
CentOS Project to change _this_ logo?
The designers articulated a number of reasons for the changes they
propose.
I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for
the
last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :).
I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also important.
I'd like to check that everyone read the discussion between the designers here, because this comment from Johnny and the responses from John Tatt and John Dennison are confusing.
tl;dr
https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/
full discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1
The monochrome logo is not additive, it is an evolution of the current logo. The current proposal is not to have a different appearing logo in monochrome than the one in color. They are different logos, resulting
in
different branding, etc.
I don't see how having two different logos solves any problems, but I
do
see how it creates a whole lot of new problems.
It is important that feedback here be more than "I don't like it, I don't want change, what we have works fine".
We need to hear:
- What don't you like about the proposed logo in comparison to the
existing logo?
It is not the logo that I helped design 17 years ago.
- Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change?
Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux.
I don't think we need to confuse the brand.
You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows
branding.
I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to change it.
That is my opinion .. I get to have my opinion.
If you want to change the logo, change the logo .. but you asked for opinions.
First of all I am surprised that Johnny was not included in the previous discussions.
I do not like that the new logo is blue as that color does not really have a personality. It is overrepresented in branding in general IMO, and it is for this reason not really something you can recognize from far away.
Regarding the colors, I don't like the current logo color and I think that if the argument to change is that it can not be embroided, I am all for having the proposed logo to be embroided e.g. on one color but keeping the current color (or modernizing them) for everything web related. Our screens don't have that embroided issue.
On the other hand, I like the curve style, even if it looks a bit more like toys and less like entreprise.
I would be fine adding that logo .. and one of every one monochrome of the primary logo colors .. and one that is rounded with the colors. I don't mind the new shapes.
For those who don't know the CentOS history .. we started out as a sub-project of cAos Linux .. and the logo is shaped like it is because of the symbol for caos (chaos): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos
So .. I am a bit hesitant to change it, because to me it means something.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 3/31/20 5:54 PM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
Hi Johnny,
I am very aware of the chaos symbol, and if you follow through our discussion in the git thread, we specifically wanted to preserve it, so we ruled out some otherwise interesting ideas.
I think the chaos symbol has a lot of personality and the logo means a lot to the community. It would be foolish to throw that away.
But it's late here, so I will try to reply more thoroughly tomorrow after reading the whole thread.
Take care, Tuomas
Tuomas,
I appreciate all the work that you and areguera did .. and i like the rounded design. I would be happy with one of each of the 4 basic colors AND the one we have, and one with all 4 colors in place.
Also maybe a white single color that could be put on a dark background. So it would be 7 in total. Same design with different colors.
Then, people could pick what they needed. On websites .. and printed materials, we can use the multicolored .. on clothing or other printing where they want to keep cost down, they could use a single color.
This is just one person's opinion, mind you, not what needs to happen ;).
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 00:37 Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
On 3/31/20 1:52 PM, Julien Pivotto wrote: > On 31 Mar 12:46, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 3/31/20 11:56 AM, Karsten Wade wrote: >>> On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>>> >>>> I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. >>>> people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change. >>> >>> Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos >>> change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the >>> CentOS Project to change _this_ logo? >>> >>> The designers articulated a number of reasons for the changes they propose. >>>> I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard >>>> font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the >>>> last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :). >>>> >>>> I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also >>>> important. >>> >>> I'd like to check that everyone read the discussion between the >>> designers here, because this comment from Johnny and the responses from >>> John Tatt and John Dennison are confusing. >>> >>> tl;dr >>> https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/ >>> >>> full discussion: >>> https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1 >>> >>> The monochrome logo is not additive, it is an evolution of the current >>> logo. The current proposal is not to have a different appearing logo in >>> monochrome than the one in color. They are different logos, resulting in >>> different branding, etc. >>> >>> I don't see how having two different logos solves any problems, but I do >>> see how it creates a whole lot of new problems. >>> >>> It is important that feedback here be more than "I don't like it, I >>> don't want change, what we have works fine". >>> >>> We need to hear: >>> >>> * What don't you like about the proposed logo in comparison to the >>> existing logo? >> >> It is not the logo that I helped design 17 years ago. >> >>> >>> * Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change? >> >> Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit >> percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit >> percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux. >> >> I don't think we need to confuse the brand. >> >> You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I >> like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows branding. >> >> I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to >> change it. >> >> That is my opinion .. I get to have my opinion. >> >> If you want to change the logo, change the logo .. but you asked for >> opinions. > > First of all I am surprised that Johnny was not included in the previous > discussions. > > I do not like that the new logo is blue as that color does not really > have a personality. It is overrepresented in branding in general IMO, and > it is for this reason not really something you can recognize from far > away. > > Regarding the colors, I don't like the current logo color and I think > that if the argument to change is that it can not be embroided, I am all > for having the proposed logo to be embroided e.g. on one color but > keeping the current color (or modernizing them) for everything web > related. Our screens don't have that embroided issue. > > On the other hand, I like the curve style, even if it looks a bit more > like toys and less like entreprise. I would be fine adding that logo .. and one of every one monochrome of the primary logo colors .. and one that is rounded with the colors. I don't mind the new shapes. For those who don't know the CentOS history .. we started out as a sub-project of cAos Linux .. and the logo is shaped like it is because of the symbol for caos (chaos): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos So .. I am a bit hesitant to change it, because to me it means something. _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 31 Mar 18:32, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 3/31/20 5:54 PM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
Hi Johnny,
I am very aware of the chaos symbol, and if you follow through our discussion in the git thread, we specifically wanted to preserve it, so we ruled out some otherwise interesting ideas.
I think the chaos symbol has a lot of personality and the logo means a lot to the community. It would be foolish to throw that away.
But it's late here, so I will try to reply more thoroughly tomorrow after reading the whole thread.
Take care, Tuomas
Tuomas,
I appreciate all the work that you and areguera did .. and i like the rounded design. I would be happy with one of each of the 4 basic colors AND the one we have, and one with all 4 colors in place.
Also maybe a white single color that could be put on a dark background. So it would be 7 in total. Same design with different colors.
Then, people could pick what they needed. On websites .. and printed materials, we can use the multicolored .. on clothing or other printing where they want to keep cost down, they could use a single color.
This is just one person's opinion, mind you, not what needs to happen ;).
+1
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 00:37 Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
On 3/31/20 1:52 PM, Julien Pivotto wrote: > On 31 Mar 12:46, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 3/31/20 11:56 AM, Karsten Wade wrote: >>> On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>>> >>>> I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. >>>> people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change. >>> >>> Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos >>> change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the >>> CentOS Project to change _this_ logo? >>> >>> The designers articulated a number of reasons for the changes they propose. >>>> I am fine with approving a new, Single color Logo with a more standard >>>> font as an additive brand, but I like the logo that we have had for the >>>> last 17 years .. well, once we go rid of the pink text :). >>>> >>>> I don't want to prevent all change .. but I do think legacy is also >>>> important. >>> >>> I'd like to check that everyone read the discussion between the >>> designers here, because this comment from Johnny and the responses from >>> John Tatt and John Dennison are confusing. >>> >>> tl;dr >>> https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/updating-the-centos-logo-and-visual-style/ >>> >>> full discussion: >>> https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1 >>> >>> The monochrome logo is not additive, it is an evolution of the current >>> logo. The current proposal is not to have a different appearing logo in >>> monochrome than the one in color. They are different logos, resulting in >>> different branding, etc. >>> >>> I don't see how having two different logos solves any problems, but I do >>> see how it creates a whole lot of new problems. >>> >>> It is important that feedback here be more than "I don't like it, I >>> don't want change, what we have works fine". >>> >>> We need to hear: >>> >>> * What don't you like about the proposed logo in comparison to the >>> existing logo? >> >> It is not the logo that I helped design 17 years ago. >> >>> >>> * Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change? >> >> Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit >> percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit >> percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux. >> >> I don't think we need to confuse the brand. >> >> You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I >> like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows branding. >> >> I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to >> change it. >> >> That is my opinion .. I get to have my opinion. >> >> If you want to change the logo, change the logo .. but you asked for >> opinions. > > First of all I am surprised that Johnny was not included in the previous > discussions. > > I do not like that the new logo is blue as that color does not really > have a personality. It is overrepresented in branding in general IMO, and > it is for this reason not really something you can recognize from far > away. > > Regarding the colors, I don't like the current logo color and I think > that if the argument to change is that it can not be embroided, I am all > for having the proposed logo to be embroided e.g. on one color but > keeping the current color (or modernizing them) for everything web > related. Our screens don't have that embroided issue. > > On the other hand, I like the curve style, even if it looks a bit more > like toys and less like entreprise. I would be fine adding that logo .. and one of every one monochrome of the primary logo colors .. and one that is rounded with the colors. I don't mind the new shapes. For those who don't know the CentOS history .. we started out as a sub-project of cAos Linux .. and the logo is shaped like it is because of the symbol for caos (chaos): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos So .. I am a bit hesitant to change it, because to me it means something. _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Ok, it is very good that we are having this discussion now.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:32 AM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
I appreciate all the work that you and areguera did .. and i like the rounded design. I would be happy with one of each of the 4 basic colors AND the one we have, and one with all 4 colors in place.
Also maybe a white single color that could be put on a dark background.
This is actually what I had in my mind for most uses of the logo. White logo over dark has good visibility, and it works great with any dark color, which helps with fabric colors for shirts etc as well. It would also look very good on wallpapers and web design etc, if you have a dark background photo with a white logo on top. Simple and powerful.
Do you know whether the four colors (yellow, green, purple and blue) represent something specific or if they have some history? Just like with the chaos symbol, I would like to understand the legacy and history to do a better job of preserving the "spirit" while modernising the look. If there is a story behind the colors, we should find a sensible way to carry it along to the updated brand.
Tuomas
On 3/31/20 8:46 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
- Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change?
Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux.
I don't think we need to confuse the brand.
You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows branding.
I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to change it.
I am 100% on the same wavelength with Johnny here. I still proudly wear the t-shirts I got at Fosdem '14 and the C8-branded hoodie received a few months ago. The embroided logo looks perfectly fine on all of them, are recognizable from afar and well... it's an established and renowned logo for an established and renowned brand.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:40:05PM +0300, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 3/31/20 8:46 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
- Is there more about not wanting change than not wanting change?
Yes .. we have a brand that is recognized the world over. Double digit percentages of all the servers on the internet and double digit percentages of all the super computers in the world run CentOS Linux.
I don't think we need to confuse the brand.
You brought this to this list to discuss it and give our opinions. I like the current, well known, what everyone on the street knows branding.
I think we lose a lot by changing that branding and I don't want to change it.
I am 100% on the same wavelength with Johnny here. I still proudly wear the t-shirts I got at Fosdem '14 and the C8-branded hoodie received a few months ago. The embroided logo looks perfectly fine on all of them, are recognizable from afar and well... it's an established and renowned logo for an established and renowned brand.
I'm fairly neutral toward the change, to the extent that it matters, being "merely" a use and not otherwise involved in the project.
But a different question: this is the second posting I've seen on this topic that uses the word "embroided". I don't know what that word means, and googling for its definition repeatedly comes up with "embroidered". Is that what those who use embroided mean? I'm just trying to make sure I am understanding what is being written....
Thanks!
Fred
On 3/31/20 10:58 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
But a different question: this is the second posting I've seen on this topic that uses the word "embroided". I don't know what that word means, and googling for its definition repeatedly comes up with "embroidered". Is that what those who use embroided mean? I'm just trying to make sure I am understanding what is being written....
yes, you are correct. we mean the process of having the logosewed into the fabric
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 12:57, Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the CentOS Project to change _this_ logo?
On the other hand, the nature of culture is to be resistant to change in the hopes that what keeps people connected is a survival mechanism. Logo and brand changes seem to always affect culture. It seems to trigger in people subconscious queues that the world they are familiar is no longer stable. Sometimes that is a good thing and sometimes it is a bad thing. In any case it always gets some group of people upset.
So to answer your question, things are usually ripe for a logo change 1. when the people in the community have changed enough that the old logo/brand no longer has a resonance. 2. when you want or have to stir up a culture change whether you or the community wants it or not
There are always going to be things that are 'wrong' with any logo you make or fix. In 3-5 years some color or proportions change will show up as being off. The bigger question is what changes in the culture you want because you have more control over what those changes are if you are open that this will cause them. Otherwise what people always think is just a small logo change ends up being a stick in a hornet's nest.
About that, is there any idea of when Red Hat changes to Red Somethingelse ?
Le Tue Mar 31 2020 19:49:23 GMT+0200 (CEST), Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com a écrit :
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 12:57, Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
On 3/26/20 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think CentOS Linux and the CentOS Project has developed a brand .. people know what it is, and I, for one, do not want it to change.
Considering that the nature of the universe is change and that logos change all the time, what are the conditions you figure are ripe for the CentOS Project to change _this_ logo?
On the other hand, the nature of culture is to be resistant to change in the hopes that what keeps people connected is a survival mechanism. Logo and brand changes seem to always affect culture. It seems to trigger in people subconscious queues that the world they are familiar is no longer stable. Sometimes that is a good thing and sometimes it is a bad thing. In any case it always gets some group of people upset. So to answer your question, things are usually ripe for a logo change 1. when the people in the community have changed enough that the old logo/brand no longer has a resonance. 2. when you want or have to stir up a culture change whether you or the community wants it or not There are always going to be things that are 'wrong' with any logo you make or fix. In 3-5 years some color or proportions change will show up as being off. The bigger question is what changes in the culture you want because you have more control over what those changes are if you are open that this will cause them. Otherwise what people always think is just a small logo change ends up being a stick in a hornet's nest.
-
Fred Smith -
Jason Brooks -
John R. Dennison -
john tatt -
Johnny Hughes -
Julien Pivotto -
Karsten Wade -
Manuel Wolfshant -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tuomas Kuosmanen