Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [blug-non-tech] Woah! || logo

Expand Messages
  • Atul Chitnis
    ... Not yet. But soon. There are professional designers involved who do not want their proposals to be made public *until* they can deem something as a final
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Balaji Narayanan wrote:

      > you had told in the last meet these logos will be put for display as
      > they come in. did i get that right? is there a chance to view them
      > then?

      Not yet. But soon. There are professional designers involved who do not
      want their proposals to be made public *until* they can deem something as
      a final submission. We have to give them all a chance.

      However, understand that there will not be a voting process for the
      public - if that is what you are hinting at.

      Having dealt with large groups of people for many years, I know that this
      is counter productive (just like "Miss India" is not chosen by 25,000
      people in the audience voting).

      The reason for a selection by committee (which is not as anonymous as some
      lost souls seem to imply) is to avoid canvassing, "friends votes" and
      overall chaos, and to assure fairness. Allowing mass-voting will not
      result in the selection of the best logo, but the selection of the logo
      whose designer has the most friends.

      Sadly, this logo matter (that I thought up, and frankly speaking should
      have discarded once I saw how politicized the issue would become) is being
      used as a tool to strike at imaginary demons.

      Believe me, those demons do not exist. No one here is trying to rip off
      anybody, or steal glory.

      The managers, while well known, and documented online, and acknowledged in
      public at every LB closing function, aren't glory seeking publicity
      hounds. But they aren't anonymous mafiosos either.

      And they certainly do not work for SCO - they do not spread fear,
      uncertainity and doubt for personal gain.

      The idle accuser is well aware of this, having been part of the original
      managers team in 2001, from which he resigned (rather - faded away) when
      he found he was actually expected to commit time and effort to the job.

      Some of you have written to me privately, saying that my refusal to
      respond is an indication of some form of guilt.

      I can only respond with this:

      In any civilised country or organisation, the burden of proof lies with
      the accuser.

      The method employed in this round of accusations was:

      "Prove to us that you aren't guilty of xyz..."

      The only reason why I and the managers kept quiet is because we wanted to
      avoid yet another dirty flamewar, watched by thousands of people,
      including potential participants and event sponsors for LB/2003.

      We also kept quiet because we knew it was pointless to respond - the
      accuser is a well known trouble maker (please check the archives of this
      list - every post has been of similar nature) who will not accept
      explanations no matter how well they are supported by proof.

      Such "debates" are pointless, and serve only as personal entertainment for
      the very people who initiated it.

      Politics for the sake of politics. Entertainment for few, agony for many.

      Neither the managers nor I have done *anything* to be ashamed of - in fact
      we are all proud of the results we have been able to show.

      In fact I can say with absolute confidence that the results you see today
      would not have been possible without the methods by which they were
      achieved (which were strictly honorable, legal and completely above
      water, and as democratic as practically possible).

      The manager model was adopted when the (so called) democracy model failed
      to bear any results (please check the archives for all of 2000 and 2001
      until LB/2001). Pleading and begging for help, participation and
      enthusiasm failed to produce *any* response - all we got was apathy,
      dropping attendance figures, and disinterest in general.

      In sheer desperation, a team of managers was *drafted* to help produce
      LB/2001, to try and jumpstart interest in Linux and OpenSource again.

      And the results of that speak for themselves.

      We finetuned the model, based on experiences from LB/2001, with even more
      spectacular results from LB/2002 (OK, Bill gates paying for all that
      advertising for us also helped).

      As Kartik pointed out during the last meet - the "Themed Meet" approach
      has had astounding success, and many more people are being exposed to
      Linux and Open Source at every meet.

      Yet the topics are decided by asking the lists. So I am not quite sure
      what the idle accuser is talking about - unless he is referring to the
      fact that *I* found a talk on the superiority of the MacOS interface over
      Linux GUIs to be wholly inappropriate as a topic.

      We have been as democratic as we can be without sacrificing our ability to
      produce results. We don't exclude anyone (we even *beg* people to
      participate - http://atulchitnis.net/writings/participating.php), but
      there are some things only a smaller group can do, and it has been doing
      its job well, with credible results.

      I therefore ask you to judge us (if you have to) by those results, not by
      the fact that the managers don't wear big signs saying "I am a manager,
      bow to me" or "I am a manager, how may I serve you".

      Just like the way we are going to select a BLUG logo based on merits of
      the logo, not the number of friends the designer has.

      And that, my friends, is the last I am going to say on this issue, until I
      re-address it *AFTER* LB/2003 (if anyone is still interested by then, of
      course). By that time, a lot of things will have become clearer.

      Right now, everyone is *way* too busy getting ready for the (very loud and
      very public) LB/2003 event, which at this point in time is less than 90
      days away,a nd is already drawing massive interst from across the planet.

      If the managers have to choose between fighting politics or getting
      information onto the website, between justifying their existance or
      juggling the gazillion pieces of information that go into organising an
      event like this, which would you *want* them to choose?

      Atul

      p.s. This is really me posting. Proof of this is the approved-by header in
      this message. Or do you want me to gpg sign my messages?
    • Balaji Narayanan
      ... Atul Not yet. But soon. There are professional designers involved Atul who do not want their proposals to be made public *until* Atul they can deem
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >>>>> "Atul" == Atul Chitnis <achitnis@...> writes:

        Atul> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Balaji Narayanan wrote:
        >> you had told in the last meet these logos will be put for
        >> display as they come in. did i get that right? is there a
        >> chance to view them then?

        Atul> Not yet. But soon. There are professional designers involved
        Atul> who do not want their proposals to be made public *until*
        Atul> they can deem something as a final submission. We have to
        Atul> give them all a chance.


        no! i just wanted to check if the logos has been put for display or
        not. my intention was to have a look at what others have to offer
        before submitting my submission.


        Atul> However, understand that there will not be a voting process
        Atul> for the public - if that is what you are hinting at.

        you guys are doing a good job and carry on.

        peace
        -b-


        --
        Eureka!
        -- Archimedes
      • Atul Chitnis
        ... Which was the original intention as well - until we realised that many (all?) other people will simply not put in any submissions because they feel their
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Balaji Narayanan wrote:

          > no! i just wanted to check if the logos has been put for display or
          > not. my intention was to have a look at what others have to offer
          > before submitting my submission.

          Which was the original intention as well - until we realised that many
          (all?) other people will simply not put in any submissions because they
          feel their stuff isn't as good as others - i.e. they will judge ther own
          work, rather than leaving the job to us. ;-)

          Right now, we are in "harvest mode" - we want as many submissions as
          possible, because it is entirely possible that we won't choose any of
          them, but will take *aspects* of each one, highlight those aspects, and
          ask people to have a second go at the issue.

          While it would be nice to have a blug logo in place by LB/2003, there is
          really no point to hurrying the process and compromising. We have time.
          The next "important date" could be the 20th March 2004 (the BLUG's 5th
          birthday - see http://www.livejournal.com/users/jessyleen/36553.html for
          details).

          So don't hold back - send in your logo. For all you know, there could be
          some aspect to your submission that triggers off some completely new line
          of thought.

          We will publish the logos under two circumstances:

          1. If we actually select one

          2. If we don't select one, and submissions stop coming in, and we take the
          route of "finetuning"

          In either case, all the logos will be published.

          In the second cae, it means that they are being published so that people
          can look at them, look at the short list we came up with, and then use
          this info to do "second runs", based on some discussion.

          Right now, I am looking foreward to being able to do (1), because clearly
          that cuts the whole process short, with the least amount debate and
          bloodshed (the latter because of the needless politicization of the
          whole thing).

          Sure, there will be people who will object, asking us "what right do you
          have...".

          The simple answer is - the right of being the originators and drivers of
          the idea. had this idea been brought up by you, you would have had the
          same right.

          Trust us, please. We have a reputation for delivering results. But we
          can't do it without MORE SUBMISSIONS!!!!!

          Atul

          p.s. As I am typing this, a note has come in from Biju. Tradition has it
          that I flame him into a smoking heap of coal and ashes, so I will make a
          few other very important points unrelated to the logo matters in reply to
          his post.

          I guarantee he won't survive it! >:)

          --
          -------------------------------------------
          Atul Chitnis | achitnis@...
          Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com
          Bangalore, India | +91 (80) 344-0397
          -------------------------------------------
        • Ramesh K. Sistla
          ... I don t think that is fair. That will also influence you (unnecessarily). You are better off not seeing theirs! -- ... ramesh k. sistla ... lOkAh samastAh
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > no! i just wanted to check if the logos has been put for display or
            > not. my intention was to have a look at what others have to offer
            > before submitting my submission.

            I don't think that is fair. That will also influence you
            (unnecessarily). You are better off not seeing theirs!


            --
            :-)
            ramesh k. sistla

            The Prayer of India:
            --------------------
            lOkAh samastAh suKhinO bhavantu -- Let the entire world be in peace!
          • Pradyumna Sampath
            Hi, This whole thing has been quite sad.Seems like it was started with an aim of jeopardize the preparation to LB/2003 which I know will not succeed.This was
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi,

              This whole thing has been quite sad.Seems like it was started with an
              aim of jeopardize the preparation to LB/2003 which I know will not
              succeed.This was just a dumb and uncessary peice of controversy.

              As someone put it .Amaazes me how someone can get so damn jobless..

              *sigh*

              A very pained
              prady


              On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 02:49, Atul Chitnis wrote:
              > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Balaji Narayanan wrote:
              >
              > > you had told in the last meet these logos will be put for display as
              > > they come in. did i get that right? is there a chance to view them
              > > then?
              >
              > Not yet. But soon. There are professional designers involved who do not
              > want their proposals to be made public *until* they can deem something as
              > a final submission. We have to give them all a chance.
              >
              > However, understand that there will not be a voting process for the
              > public - if that is what you are hinting at.
              >
              > Having dealt with large groups of people for many years, I know that this
              > is counter productive (just like "Miss India" is not chosen by 25,000
              > people in the audience voting).
              >
              > The reason for a selection by committee (which is not as anonymous as some
              > lost souls seem to imply) is to avoid canvassing, "friends votes" and
              > overall chaos, and to assure fairness. Allowing mass-voting will not
              > result in the selection of the best logo, but the selection of the logo
              > whose designer has the most friends.
              >
              > Sadly, this logo matter (that I thought up, and frankly speaking should
              > have discarded once I saw how politicized the issue would become) is being
              > used as a tool to strike at imaginary demons.
              >
              > Believe me, those demons do not exist. No one here is trying to rip off
              > anybody, or steal glory.
              >
              > The managers, while well known, and documented online, and acknowledged in
              > public at every LB closing function, aren't glory seeking publicity
              > hounds. But they aren't anonymous mafiosos either.
              >
              > And they certainly do not work for SCO - they do not spread fear,
              > uncertainity and doubt for personal gain.
              >
              > The idle accuser is well aware of this, having been part of the original
              > managers team in 2001, from which he resigned (rather - faded away) when
              > he found he was actually expected to commit time and effort to the job.
              >
              > Some of you have written to me privately, saying that my refusal to
              > respond is an indication of some form of guilt.
              >
              > I can only respond with this:
              >
              > In any civilised country or organisation, the burden of proof lies with
              > the accuser.
              >
              > The method employed in this round of accusations was:
              >
              > "Prove to us that you aren't guilty of xyz..."
              >
              > The only reason why I and the managers kept quiet is because we wanted to
              > avoid yet another dirty flamewar, watched by thousands of people,
              > including potential participants and event sponsors for LB/2003.
              >
              > We also kept quiet because we knew it was pointless to respond - the
              > accuser is a well known trouble maker (please check the archives of this
              > list - every post has been of similar nature) who will not accept
              > explanations no matter how well they are supported by proof.
              >
              > Such "debates" are pointless, and serve only as personal entertainment for
              > the very people who initiated it.
              >
              > Politics for the sake of politics. Entertainment for few, agony for many.
              >
              > Neither the managers nor I have done *anything* to be ashamed of - in fact
              > we are all proud of the results we have been able to show.
              >
              > In fact I can say with absolute confidence that the results you see today
              > would not have been possible without the methods by which they were
              > achieved (which were strictly honorable, legal and completely above
              > water, and as democratic as practically possible).
              >
              > The manager model was adopted when the (so called) democracy model failed
              > to bear any results (please check the archives for all of 2000 and 2001
              > until LB/2001). Pleading and begging for help, participation and
              > enthusiasm failed to produce *any* response - all we got was apathy,
              > dropping attendance figures, and disinterest in general.
              >
              > In sheer desperation, a team of managers was *drafted* to help produce
              > LB/2001, to try and jumpstart interest in Linux and OpenSource again.
              >
              > And the results of that speak for themselves.
              >
              > We finetuned the model, based on experiences from LB/2001, with even more
              > spectacular results from LB/2002 (OK, Bill gates paying for all that
              > advertising for us also helped).
              >
              > As Kartik pointed out during the last meet - the "Themed Meet" approach
              > has had astounding success, and many more people are being exposed to
              > Linux and Open Source at every meet.
              >
              > Yet the topics are decided by asking the lists. So I am not quite sure
              > what the idle accuser is talking about - unless he is referring to the
              > fact that *I* found a talk on the superiority of the MacOS interface over
              > Linux GUIs to be wholly inappropriate as a topic.
              >
              > We have been as democratic as we can be without sacrificing our ability to
              > produce results. We don't exclude anyone (we even *beg* people to
              > participate - http://atulchitnis.net/writings/participating.php), but
              > there are some things only a smaller group can do, and it has been doing
              > its job well, with credible results.
              >
              > I therefore ask you to judge us (if you have to) by those results, not by
              > the fact that the managers don't wear big signs saying "I am a manager,
              > bow to me" or "I am a manager, how may I serve you".
              >
              > Just like the way we are going to select a BLUG logo based on merits of
              > the logo, not the number of friends the designer has.
              >
              > And that, my friends, is the last I am going to say on this issue, until I
              > re-address it *AFTER* LB/2003 (if anyone is still interested by then, of
              > course). By that time, a lot of things will have become clearer.
              >
              > Right now, everyone is *way* too busy getting ready for the (very loud and
              > very public) LB/2003 event, which at this point in time is less than 90
              > days away,a nd is already drawing massive interst from across the planet.
              >
              > If the managers have to choose between fighting politics or getting
              > information onto the website, between justifying their existance or
              > juggling the gazillion pieces of information that go into organising an
              > event like this, which would you *want* them to choose?
              >
              > Atul
              >
              > p.s. This is really me posting. Proof of this is the approved-by header in
              > this message. Or do you want me to gpg sign my messages?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Before posting to this list, read the list rules FIRST!
              >
              > http://linux-bangalore.org/discussions/rules.php
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              --
              Mail : prady (at) prady dot net
              BMS College Of Engeneering
              http://prady.net


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.