[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
|
I have stated my personal opinion on the previous thread on logo selection and don't have much more new to say other than maybe we should leave this one alone.
The process may not be perfect, but it seems open enough and pragmatic enough. Let's give people some reasonable room to try and do this right on our behalf. Clearly people's (all of our) hearts are in the right place. To state the obvious though, maybe we should also remember if we are hypercritical on every little thing, it is possible we may have a harder time solving more substantive issues if they ever occur.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 3/23/18 4:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
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.
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.