Re: New binary installer logo

Here¹s my two bits:

At the risk of repeating myself, I see the problem lies with focusing on one
specific situation rather than the wider questions. This forum often gets
bogged down in specifics that eventually descend into name-calling, rather
than dealing with policy. And little is ever really resolved with everyone
feeling positive about the outcome.

I don¹t believe that Enterprise DB (or any other developer) getting their
name up in the way that this is being presented is particularly threatening
in principle or in fact. I, for one, don¹t take a lot of notice of logos in
this context ­ particularly ones that are (dare I say it) as unattractive as
the PostgreSQL and Enterprise DB images.

{My apologies to their respective designers but they are very 70s!}

I don¹t believe they are noticed and I don¹t believe they are effective.
Printed names (in the text) has more pulling power through Google searches
and more credibility on Wikipedia, etc. and public acknowledgement through
media releases. I¹d appreciate a positive comment in the media from Josh or
Simon, et al. Œthat the PostgreSQL community expresses its gratitude to
<insert name here> for its important contribution to the release of <insert
product name here>¹ than having a logo plastered on a page.

That said, there are places where a logo is appropriate and I¹d be happy to
pursue that discussion as part of a policy development framework.

Where there is one or more contributing sponsors, a Œtramline¹ at the bottom
of the page acknowledging contributors/sponsors is more powerful (if you
accept my view on the virtues of Google acknowledgements).

This scrapping is completely counter-productive and totally unnecessary. To
play out these sorts of arguments in an open forum seems to my innocent view
of the world: petty and counterproductive.

I would really like to see this whole issue of sponsorship and recognition
drafted as a policy. I, for one, would be happy to see that this disparate
band can work toward a positive outcome ­ just as you do with software
development.

This group is supposed to be working toward advocacy. How about doing that?

Rob Napier

P.S. Josh Berkus offered feedback on the brochure concept. It is almost
ready to go to print. I assume Œno comment¹ means everyone approved.

On 9/7/09 9:16 AM, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problem is that EDB's logo contains their name, while the PostgreSQL
>> elephant doesn't, so having only the two logos isn't even. What Dave
>> suggested and my son Matthew implemented is a new installer logo, moving
>> the Postgres elephant logo to the top and adding the "PostgreSQL" name,
>> and moving the EnterpriseDB logo to the bottom. Here is the result,
>> which will appear in the next version of the installer:
>>
>> http://momjian.us/expire/logo.png
>>
>>
> IMHO this is a good step in the right direction, but BitRock certainly
> invested even more time into creating the base installer than EDB into
> the pgsql specific part. BitRock doesn't present their lettering so
> prominently either.
>
> As Greg wrote: