Difference between revisions of "AboutUsLogo:Status"

Status: YES

• We have 95% (20) YES of 21 ActiveMembers (not including staff)
• We have 100% (21) YES of 21 Staff

DoneTimer may finish as early as August 3, 2007 @ 6:44pm (PDT)

• reset by edits 18:44, 1 August 2007 (PDT)
• reset by edits 22:53, 31 July 2007 (PDT)
• reset by edits 20:53, 31 July 2007 (PDT)
• reset by edits 15:56, 31 July 2007 (PDT)
• started 00:30 PDT, 30 July 2007

Participants

To participate, enter your name as would like it to appear (after the slash).

YES ---------- YES

ActiveMembers

1. Diana Demarest (Active Member)

   YES We need to first define WhoWeAre and then choose an AboutUsLogo. (lots more discussion - click "show" in the yellow bar to see) edit

   Discussion

   The logo is beautifully done but for me it just doesn't "say" About Us. Perhaps an element could be added that says "look" or "investigate further" or "community building".

   EDIT 7/20/07: I still feel the same way - I still feel that the logo doesn't say what we do. For me it would make a great logo for a gardening company or a plant nursery. It needs an element that indicates what this site is about.

   Ted: Thanks for the call. It was great to talk to you.

   I completely agree with Tak’s comments on this.

   What sets About Us apart from other portals and Wikis? User involvement . Unlike other Wiki's out there, About Us involves users in every aspect of the community, from permitted content, to logo decisions, to the identity itself. This is HUGE to me and for me, the largest highlight of the identity. It's part Wiki, part search engine, part portal, but the biggest factor that sets it apart is the sense of community, caring and users and staff assisting one another for the common good of the community as a whole.

   When I first came to this site, I was pretty intimidated and quite frankly, overwhelmed. The way I have been treated by Tak and the other folks here made me want to come back and be part of it. I was never made to feel stupid when I asked a question and everyone has been extremely helpful. That is hard to find anymore. My About Us experiences is what gives me the sense of community that truly exists here.

   I feel that WhoWeAre and the AboutUsLogo are not separate entities but are two entities attached at the hip. We can’t have one without the other. As a result, I feel that since a logo is the branding of About Us as an entity, the logo should reflect who we are. I don’t wish hold up the process but the leaves just don’t say community to me. It doesn’t reflect the mosaic the About Us community really is. Rather than rush to come up with a logo fast, I’d rather the process be slower so we get it right the first time and not keep rebranding ourselves.

   Successful branding is what sets one logo apart from another. We don’t need to see the name of the company on the logo to recognize immediately whose logo it is. Examples which come to mind are the Chevrolet logo, the multicolored Microsoft “Window”, the McDonald’s golden arches. We need something really recognizable that when one sees the logo they say “Oh – that’s the About Us website.” Thanks for the opportunity to participate! I hope this helps. Di :) "Diana Demarest 16:27, 31 July 2007 (PDT)"

   Template:Yes Hello again folks. I truly appreciate your attempt to address my concerns, more than you know. I have a question - what's the rush? Is this because of a go live launch? I truly believe that we are putting the cart before the horse. I feel that we should figure out who we are and base the logo on that, not the other way around. In reading the comments from the folks who gave it a Yes, I was disturbed by how many said the logo didn't really represent who we are. Based on this and my feelings that we shouldn't brand ourselves and then re-brand ourselves again, I am still in the not yet camp. Sorry - it is how I feel. "Diana Demarest 08:36, 1 August 2007 (PDT)"

   I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

   One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

   A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

   I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this? Brandon CS Sanders

   Hi Diana Demarest, Did you see the recent change made to AboutUsLogo text? How do you feel about it? As a result of this logo process, we've created the WhoWeAre page. What we're asking people now is if the logo proposed is better than the listening man we have right now. If it is, then please change yourself to YES and visit WhoWeAre to say you'd like to work on that. If not, please say that as well, and leave yourself at not yet for now. Thanks! Looking forward to hearing from you soon! Best, Obed Suhail 01:23, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

   Diana, I'd love to talk with you by phone before this logo gets adopted Tuesday night. When would work for you? TedErnst

   AboutUs is in conversations with VCs, so yes, I think people are feeling a sense of urgency. I don't mean urgency like it has to be done today or even this week, but my sense is that the WhoWeAre process could take several months, and the yellow clipart just looks crappy, in my opinion. TedErnst

   Ok I get that but the fact is though the new logo isn't "crappy", it doesn't reflect the community either. So IMHO, either way, both logos are wrong for the site. So are we saying we want to be wrong a second time but not crappy? I realize you guys want to get this done. I am just in the camp of let's get it right the first time instead of causing a confusion to the masses with the brand. Of course, I realize that the group has pretty much decided so I guess the new logo will be. Aren't you sorry you asked? :-D Diana Demarest 11:28, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

   :-) No, I'm not sorry I asked. :-) In fact, I'm a NotYet myself right now, in solidarity with your concerns. I actually think the proposed logo is a great image for our community. I feel that we are growing community. Community cannot be built, in an engineering process, but must be grown, in an organic process. I find the image very compelling, personally. And, I also feel it's really important to do everything we can to satisfy the concerns of all, including you. I don't know if that's possible, but let's try, shall we? I hear that one way to satisfy your concerns is to finish the WhoWeAre process first, so we're sure that whatever logo we choose is the permanent one, correct? TedErnst

   Well, yes. :)

   I have been involved, a few times, with my biggest client, in logo processes for their products and websites. Their Madison Avenue-type advertising firm, the corporate marketing team and we as their webmasters, were locked up in a conference room for hours on end, defining the product/website goal in question. Once we defined it, then we went through a logo process to determine if the logo conveyed the thought or idea in question. Sorry for being a PIA on this but because of my previous experiences, it just seems like a better way of doing things.

   Branding is so important for the reasons I outlined earlier. For them, it gave the customers and audience an immediate visual "burn in" of the brand. I think it is confusing for the audience to change oars mid-stream and make changes later, making the identity harder to remember, which I think in the goal with a logo in the long run - no? Diana Demarest 12:42, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

   Okay. Just to clarify to make things crystal clear. One way to satisfy your concern about branding is to work on WhoWeAre first, and only when that's done, come back to the AboutUsLogo, yes? Sorry for being pedantic. Just want to be clear that this possible solution would work for you. If so, great, we can talk more. If not, then it's important to get clarification. TedErnst

   Yes. For me, first things first. Define WhoWeAre, then do the logo. You got it. Crystal clear. :) Diana Demarest 13:55, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

   Great. Hope you don't mind that I made an EfficientlyExpressedSuggestion by changing your status message and moving the rest of the discussion behind the "show" link. Fell free to change and/or revert if that's not okay. TedErnst

   Diana, I'm so glad that you are here! I find myself vigorously nodding my head as I read your comments. I too think that we're getting the horse in front of the cart to choose a logo before we have agreement about WhoWeAre. Like you, I get the feeling that a lot of folks are at yes "in spite" of the logo rather than "in love" with the logo.

   AND

   I really do love this logo! The element of "emergence" from the interactions of diverse individuals is the most powerful part of it for me. Emergence is a tough concept to represent visually and I think the logo does a great job of that. I worry that perhaps it is a bit too abstract for people to take in at a glance.

   There are only 40 of us here participating in this poll, and I'd like to involve more of the folks who visit and contribute to AboutUs. So I imagine this as an experiment with a very large focus group. We've tried the yellow man for a few months, let's try the leaves for a few months as we are working on WhoWeAre. I think we can learn from having them up as our logo. Brandon CS Sanders

   Gee thanks! I'm glad to be here! I don't mean to be the weenie in the group. I truly want a logo that reflects the many facets of this awesome place. I think it is worth investing the time. Ted it is fine that you moved the comments - they should have been there in the first place. I am still having a learning curve on how to use the Wiki environment. What do you want from a database geek? :-D

   Diana, you're not being a weenie. How do you feel about Brandon's idea of trying the new logo for a few months after trying the (placeholder) yellow clipart for a few months? Also, there were some edits to the text underneath the logo today. Have you seen them? TedErnst

   I don't think you are being a weenie at all either :-) I think we've been doing some great collaborative thinking together! In a traditional environment the inside of the organization carefully controls what those outside see of their process. This makes change expensive because only truly finished products can be released into the wild. Here on the wiki, ChangeIsCheap and we have the opportunity to try lots of different experiments. There is an emphasis on iterating our way to perfection rather than trying to achieve it in one big step.

   Also, we're doubling our traffic every three months. Three months of the public seeing leaves rather than the "real" logo doesn't make such a huge difference from a branding perspective, because in 6 months only 25% of all visitors ever will have seen the old logo. On the other hand, as we are raising money to sustain the project, the "slickness" of the appearence of the site does matter to potential investors as we negotiate with them over the next three months.

   I ordinarily don't like to sign my comments because I want others to feel comfortable editing them and deleting them. But I'll continue signing them because I'd like to continue to get to know you. Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

   OK my friends, I'll change it to a yes with the hopes that we keep an eye toward a permanent logo that better suits the community. I suppose we are still in Beta. BTW, I wanted to make note that in reading the web stats on my site, I have been getting quite a few hits from About Us, so I am a happy camper about that! Anyone who doesn't want to be here is nuts. I look forward to working with you guys on other things! :)

2. Katonal (Active Member)

   YES It's great. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Katonal! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

3. Eohippus (ActiveMember)

   YES I wanted the designer to supply an explanation of why the logo is appropriate, because without that, to me, a yellow leaf is a dead one which is about to fall off the tree. I have since read the discussion and withdraw my objections. I can't think of anything better. But see and http://www.hema-quebec.qc.ca/ for two differnt logos which take the teardrop concept and shows it as a drop of blood. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Eohippus, The AboutUsLogo ConsensusPoll has surpassed all it's GoThresholds and we will be turning on the DoneTimer as soon as all participants have been notified. This means that all participants now have the opportunity to check AboutUsLogo one more time, to make sure we haven't overlooked something. Please feel free to change the document and/or change your status, if need be. Best, Obed Suhail

4. Misha (ActiveMember)

   YES I think the logo is beautiful but not really representative of a place to find websites. Looks lke a botany logo, but I do prefer it over the Man logo. edit

   Discussion

   Misha, have you seen the text below the logo and the WhoWeAre process? TedErnst

   Yes, I read a little more and I kind of like the logos with the people in them more. Did I fill everything out right Ted?

   Misha, you're doing perfect! And, the text below the logo says (to me) that we're trying to replace the yellow stick figure right now, and then have the WhoWeAre process, which may lead us to replacing the logo again. Is that also how you read the text? TedErnst

   Yes, I got the info. But i have to agree that the leaf doesn't seem to fit the proper logo. I like the other ideas of the people. The ones that show people connected and growing. The leaf logo is nice, but doesn't seem to fit. Thean again an apple logo says nothing about computers but everyone knows what it means!

   Just my two cents :) User:Misha

   Okay, let me try again. The issue is "Do we or do we not replace the yellow stick figure with the new proposed logo?" The issue of "Does it fit?" falls more under the WhoWeAre process, I think. How does that strike you? TedErnst

   Ok, i think replacing it is a good idea :)User:Misha

   Alright, could you please change your status (above) from "NotYet" to "Yes" and your comment to something that fits where you are right now? Thanks! TedErnst :-)

   Thanks!

   Hi Misha, The AboutUsLogo ConsensusPoll has surpassed all it's GoThresholds and we will be turning on the DoneTimer as soon as all participants have been notified. This means that all participants now have the opportunity to check AboutUsLogo one more time, to make sure we haven't overlooked something. Please feel free to change the document and/or change your status, if need be. Best, Obed Suhail

5. ChristopheDucamp (ActiveMember)

   YES Very nice work. Looks far more professional than the currently one. edit

   Discussion
6. Sam Shefrin (Active Member)

   YES Better than what you have now, but still needs work. Let's work to make it better. It still doesn't tell me anything about what the company does. A logo should invoke a viewer to visualize an instant correlation between the logo image and the company's mission. I don't know if anyone will look at the current logo and know what About Us does or stands for. Have you considered a tagline? edit

   Discussion

   Hi Sam. There's a new idea taking shape I'd love your reaction to. The idea is that the proposed logo is better than what we have now, as you say above, and we don't have a clear agreement on what AboutUs is or what logo should show that. So, let's approve this new logo proposal because it is a step forward, and then immediately begin working on WhoWeAre. How 'bout it? If this works for you, please adjust your status to Yes and your comment above accordingly. If not, then please comment back here and we'll go from there. Thanks! TedErnst

7. Di (Active Member)

   YES It looks better after a few looks. While it doesn't immediately say what we are "about", it does invoke curiosity. I like it now. Also I like the leaf concept that to me speaks of growth and emergence. edit

   Discussion

   I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

   One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

   A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

   I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this?

   An additional piece of news is that we've begun the WhoWeAre process. Check it out? TedErnst

8. DrewMyers (Active Member)

   YES I really like this logo. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Drew! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

9. Julie Hughes (Active Member)

   YES It's a beautiful logo. I believe that as long as we make an effort to develop a descriptive tagline to tie the logo image to the AboutUs concept, that we can proceed. edit

   Discussion

   I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

   One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

   A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

   I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this?

   On behalf of those of us who "came late to the party," I would have to say that, despite the discussion, there is no visible connection (for me) between the logo and the AboutUs.org purpose. To anyone outside the organization, I'm afraid that there would be a total disconnect.
   
   However, perhaps both groups could be served by the creation of a descriptive tagline. Something along the lines of "Providing the means to help your website grow" or "Providing the tools to grow websites" might coincide with the Topsoil metaphor and enable non-members to understand the design.
   
   Just my 2 cents. Jules | talk 21:35, 26 June 2007 (PDT)

   Hi Jules, do you find the current design better than the listening man? Would you be okay approving this one if we then immediately started a new logo process, to take into consideration all the concerns raised in this one about what AboutUs is all about and is trying to convey with the logo? I like this solution because it let's us immediately improve the look/feel of the site (honors group one) while starting a process that fully includes those who are newer in not only the logo decision, but also the value and mission discussion that precedes choice of a new logo (honors group two). Brandon

   Hi, Brandon. I do prefer the current design over the listening man, most definitely. I also like your solution because it lets us move the process along and experience a sense of accomplishment. (Oh, yes I do have this page on my watchlist, which is a terrific feature. But I didn't get a notice that you had added a comment.) Jules | talk 19:16, 2 July 2007 (PDT)

   Heya Jules, I'm looking forward to working with you to articulate what aboutus is :-) I think we should probably start that process soon. Would you be interested in helping to facilitate it? Facilitation is mostly just listening to people and then helping them change the document to address their concerns. I think it's really fun and I'd be happy to work with you on it. Brandon

   In my eagerness, I've gotten started on a WhoWeAre poll. Perhaps you'd like to join me there :-)? -- Brandon

   I added myself to the WhoWeAre poll. Sounds like a lot of fun. Jules | talk 12:21, 3 July 2007 (PDT)

   Hey Jules, been looking at your work! Exciting!! :-) Your words sparked something for a possible tagline. Wiki.. growing interconnectedness... or something along those lines and not as awkward. Best, MarkDilley

10. Ian Schray (Active Member)

    YES Really nice logo, Vinh. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Ian! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

11. MartinPfahler (Active Member)

    YES It will look great on a T-shirt! edit

    Discussion

    Hi Martin! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

12. Michael (Active Member)

    YES Absolutely Beautiful - I love the colors and its crispness edit

    Discussion

    Hi Michael! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

13. Nathan (Active Member)

    YES I really like it as well. edit

    
    

    Discussion

    Hi Nathan! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

    
    

14. Redlake6 (Active Member)

    YES I am partial to the original, but this one's really cool - go for it! edit

    Discussion

    Hi Redlake! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

    
    

15. Robert David Thompson (Active Member)

    YES This logo is snazzy. I'll add a comment below. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Robert! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

16. ShelleySchoepflinSanders (Active Member)

    YES Organic, vibrant, and appealing. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Shelley! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

17. Simon Koldyk (Active Member)

    YES Very well done, although I'd like to see the whole logo in the favicon if possible. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Simon! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

18. Tretter (Active Member)

    YES Looks great! I love it!! edit

    Discussion

    Hi Peter! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

19. Wally Wilson (Active Member)

    YES With the idea of a site color palette firmly in mind...Yes, I'm there... Vinh, You have totally conquered that "font-thing." Very nice, indeed! edit

    Discussion

    Hi Wally! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

20. Geekosaurus (Active Member)

    YES It is a very well-designed logo. Coloring looks good as well. edit

    Discussion

    I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

    One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

    A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

    I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this?

    Unfortunately, I haven't been actively editing AboutUs for very long yet, so I don't know that much about the site. What exactly is the image we want to project?

    I agree with the second group of people you described; it seems much more logical to first decide what AboutUs is really about and then come up with a logo that fits. However, maybe they already did this before I was here.

    Geekosaurus 15:32, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

    Geekosaurus, is the current design better than the listening man, to you? Would you be okay approving this one if we then immediately started a new logo process, to take into consideration all the concerns raised in this one about what AboutUs is all about and is trying to convey with the logo? Brandon

    Yeah, I do think the new one is better than the listening man. Geekosaurus 05:45, 3 July 2007 (PDT)

    Okay, how about changing your status to yes up above? We're going to start the new logo process some time this week. Perhaps with a WhoWeAre consensus poll. I hope you'll participate :-) Are you interested in helping to facilitate that poll? (of course, you don't have to facilitate in order to participate) -- Brandon

    
    

Staff

1. TedErnst (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I'm not sure why Diana is a YES, but she is, so I am as well. edit

   Discussion
2. KristinaWeis (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I thought I was already a participant in the "Yes" section, but it appears I just was in spirit so here I am for real. edit

   Discussion

   
   

3. Asma Khan (AboutUsStaff)

   YES This logo is a sign of prosperity,the leaf growing out of the boundary, depicts that the organization is in the development stage and its evolving. edit

   Discussion

   
   

4. Tanwir Shah (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I still don't believe this logo best represents AboutUs but on the understanding that this is a short term, interim logo and out of respect for all the hard work that has been done on it, I say yes in order to help facilitate a second round of discussions. edit

   Discussion

   Tanwir, is the current design better than the listening man, to you? Would you be okay approving this one if we then immediately started a new logo process, to take into consideration all the concerns raised in this one about what AboutUs is all about and is trying to convey with the logo? TedErnst

   I think it is a little unfair to ask if the present logo is better than the one being suggested to replace it. Of course it is but I still do not feel that a leaf logo represents who we are? So what do I do? Do I say yes even though I don't really believe that this is the best logo for about us? I wish I had the skills to create my own. That way I could replace it with something I think works. One of the problems with

   this consensus poll is that modifications cannot be made directly. We can only make suggestions. Not very AboutUs-ish Tanwir Shah

   Tanwir, I completely agree with you. We really need better ways to work with images, AND, we need to know WhoWeAre. And speaking of that, did you see Brandon's note below? Does that change anything for you? TedErnst

   Hi Tanwir, I started WhoWeAre. Perhaps you'd like to help facilitate that process? -- Brandon

   Tanwir ... the tone of your yes doesn't feel good at all to me. I'd rather that you were still at "not yet" rather than a passive aggressive yes. If starting the WhoWeAre process and honoring the work that has happened so far isn't enough for you to feel good about saying yes to this version, what sort of thing would you feel good about saying yes to? Do you feel that we shouldn't adopt this new version of the logo until the WhoWeAre process has finished? Brandon

   Brandon, I didn't realise my comments would be interpreted as aggressive. I wasn't being aggressive, honest. I thought my words best summarised our discussion. I mentioned the two main points you raised, namely the interim nature of the logo and the lengthy process that people have gone through to reach this point. My yes is not because I think the logo is the the right logo for AboutUs but because you helped me to understand that this was the first stage of a longer process of debate. I was reluctant to change but perhaps I should not have said this once I was ready to change. I will remove the word reluctant from my comments and I apologise for any upset I may have caused. I can assure you that it was not intentional. Tanwir Shah

   No worries Tanwir. I think my comment above came across stronger than I meant it to be as well :-) Thanks for changing your status comment. I feel a lot better about you being at yes now. Now it feels like you've chosen to make a tradeoff rather than having your arm twisted. Please also let me know when you notice one of my comments that doesn't seem to have the tone you would expect. Writing on the Internet is tricky! Ohh yeah, I strengthened up the text on AboutUsLogo to include the WhoWeAre process that is now starting. Perhaps you could take a look at it and tweak it up better? Warmly Brandon

5. Asad Butt (AboutUsStaff)

   YES It's beautiful and suggestive. So perfectly alright to me. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Asad! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

6. Blake Hinkley (AboutUsStaff)

   YES Beautiful logo. Great look and feel for the site. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Blake! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

7. Brandon CS Sanders (AboutUsStaff)

   YES Soooooooo happy edit

   Discussion
8. ChrisBabson (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I don't think we're going to do any better than this. Great work Vinh! edit

   Discussion

   Hi Chris! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

9. Isabel (AboutUsStaff)

   YES Love it- clean, modern, simple. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Isabel! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

10. John Stanton (AboutUsStaff)

    YES It works very well for me, simple and unique. edit

    Discussion

    Hi John! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

11. Julia (AboutUsStaff)

    YES While the logo is not what one is used to seeing for a tech company or a web 2.0 site, I feel like it does a good job of representing AboutUs' vision for Topsoil and the future of the site. It conveys growth and complexity in a way that looks clean & simple. The organic imagery & colors speak to the way the site will grow organically with the community. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Julia! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

12. Kasey (AboutUsStaff)

    YES It's alive! edit

    Discussion

    Hi Kasey! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

13. MarkDilley (AboutUsStaff)

    YES I like this logo very much but am not fond of the dual colors. Maybe a byline could be Growing the wiki internet edit

    Discussion

    Hi Mark! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

14. Mohsen Gilani (AboutUsStaff)

    YES Very nice and I like it. Initially I was little concerned about the pale colour on top but as long as the it is growing, perfect. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Mohsen! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

15. Obed Suhail (AboutUsStaff)

    YES Original and simple. I like it! edit

    Discussion

    Hi Obed! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

16. Ray King (AboutUsStaff)

    YES We've been through a lot of possibilities and I was afraid we might have to "settle", but that's not the case and I really like this one better than earlier designs and feel that it conveys the concept of organic growth and a simple and effective way. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Ray! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

17. ScottKeeler (AboutUsStaff)

    YES Wonderful. edit

    Discussion
18. Vinh Nguyen (AboutUsStaff)

    YES I feel very good about this logo. I think it conveys many things AboutUs that speak to the ideas of: collaboration, community building, emergence, growth and organic structures. It is visually strong while maintaining a certain elegance. It also is very flexible, meaning it can be used in various ways as well as a base for other derivations. edit

    Discussion
19. Ward Cunningham (AboutUsStaff)

    YES I like the logo because it makes something that is clearly alive out of parts that are regular and rather abstract. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Ward! I wonder if you would be interested in facilitating this consensus poll? If so, go to Projects:AboutUsLogo and add your name so that we can coordinate! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

20. Wasim Sajid (AboutUsStaff)

    YES The new logo is certainly better than the listening man. edit

    Discussion

    Wasim, is the current design better than the listening man, to you? Would you be okay approving this one if we then immediately started a new logo process, to take into consideration all the concerns raised in this one about what AboutUs is all about and is trying to convey with the logo? TedErnst

21. TakKendrick (AboutUsStaff)

    YES I'm glad we're finally here. I'm removing my previous concerns which really amounted to my wanting to make sure the the community members' concerns were being heard (which I believe they now have). If you're interested in see the entirety of my post, it's available in the history and in the discussion below. edit

    Discussion

    Tak, is the latest version of the new logo "good enough" to use it now to replace the listening man? Would it make a difference to you if the agreement was for us to immediately start another logo process when this one was done? I'm just asking. :-) TedErnst

    Tak, I think you are raising a huge issue that we haven't addressed at all. How the logo may be used, and whether there can be other versions or if there is only "one true version". It feels to me like it would be most effective to agree on the "spirit of the logo" and then adapt it to particular usage cases. It also feels important to me to not completely lock down the logo and say "these are the only versions you can use", but rather recognize that each opportunity to use the logo may require some adaptation of it. For example, a horizontal version may be more appropiate for business cards ... so when we need to make business cards we use a horizontal version that maintains the spirit of the design we are agreeing to. I added the below line to the document in an attempt to begin to address this important concern. What do you think?

    We anticipate new and unforseen uses of this logo to represent our collective identity, and expect our members will adapt the logo to suit the needs of the moment.

    Tak, just a note to thank you for expressing so clearly your concerns. TedErnst

    Tak, the GoTimer is now running as we've met all of our thresholds. Just wanted to let you know so you could have a chance to have your needs met by the process. TedErnst

    Here's my previous concerns, purely for archival purposes. I'm quite content now with where the logo poll is at. -- Let me try to express my concerns better. The reason why I like the catch phrase was that it presented an opportunity to better explain why we chose a leaf to represent us. Looking at the community concerns over the logo, they all lead to confusion over message and the catch phrase allows for a statement of purpose that a leaf just doesn't express (really, there's a point here, if you don't know anything about AboutUs or wiki-think, the leaf does make us look like a gardening/nursery website).

    I just believe that someone on staff needs to stand on principle for this concern, because I don't feel that the community's beliefs/conceptions of what we are is being heard or answered, and the catchphase is another place where we can really nail the message. (Which, honestly, I feel we are weak on.)

    This isn't a "new or unforeseen" concern or use, this is something we've been dealing with for months and I feel that taking it out of the logo process is obscuring the need for a refactoring of message as a top priority for this community and (as by-product, this company).

    Let me also reiterate what I've said to Vihn, Scott and several other staff members that when the levels on this consensus poll are at the point when enough Community Members are in agreement, I won't stand in the way of this and will switch to a yes, even if my concerns haven't been fully addressed.