In my opinion the marketing team are the best qualified people to do a level of pre-selection given that the marketing team are
highly experienced in branding. I don’t think professional marketers rule out logos due to “personal taste”, I know as engineers there is a tendency to trivialise the work of marketing specialists. However they are professionals and are skilled in what they
do and I for one have great respect for their opinions.
Personally I would have preferred the marketing committee of the JakartaEE WG to have managed the process and selected the logo
choices, however I fully understand why this hasn’t happened as Mike blogged about.
Steve
From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
<ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Markus KARG
Sent: 24 March 2018 07:24
To: 'EE4J community discussions' <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
Mike,
thanks for clarification.
I think we all would be happy if simply you could confirm that the marketing team did not do any kind of "preselection" by other criteria than just
*legal* issues. In particular, they did not rule out logos due to personal taste, style, or design choice. Right?
What the community expects is to have control over Jakarta EE (in the sense of making the rules for the EF, not the EF making the rules for the community).
This includes that the EF asks the community *before* the EF acts. And with "community" I do not mean "only paying vendors" but also the majority of committers (even non-member committers).
-Markus
On 2018-03-23 4:27 PM, Jason Greene wrote:
I read that differently. My interpretation is: They just eliminated candidates that failed to meet the design criteria, which did include a basic legal component. The next step is a more thorough legal analysis as well as
a brand review from the foundation’s marketing team. From that process they will pick the strongest contenders. Both of these functions are pretty standard (Also really important for major industry marks) and based on expertise & analysis, and while we all
have some biases, I seriously doubt this is driven by simple personal preferences.
This is correct. We removed the ones that did not meet the design criteria as stated in writing. This included removing the ones that we knew had legal issues. Now we are going to do more reviews, including deeper legal ones.
The community will have an opportunity to select from a number of options.
Is the concern more that there will be too few options and you guys might not like the options, or is it that there is some nefarious purpose? If it’s the latter what would they have to gain?
Right. Some were removed for legal reasons but the rest was a subjective decision by the marketing team.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I understood the original mail in a way that from all submissions the EF
removed everything but left over only four due to a pre-selection by their
*marketing* team (not *legal* team).
-Markus
-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Heiko W. Rupp
Sent: Freitag, 23. März 2018 20:07
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
On 23 Mar 2018, at 18:35, Markus KARG wrote:
> I second that. The EF should simply remove those logos which are
> legally problematic, and then let the community vote for their
> favorite. This is a community project, and
Isn't that what
| > * We will hold a community vote to determine which of these
| > final candidate logos should be the chosen logo.
says?
I understand Paul that the EF needs to (to quote you) "remove those logos
which are legally problematic", which is done by the marketing team, as they
know this process of removal best.
But then I may be wrong.
Heiko
