Ok,
   I collated the votes filtering on the subject line. I know that method missed some of the non-binding votes, but I don't believe it changed the outcome.

With the binding votes from the PMC:

First Round
2 4
4 4
5 6
6 1
Second Round (Drop 6)
2 5
4 4
5 6
Third Round (Drop 4)
2 8
5 7

 
So in the very close race, #2 wins. My spreadsheets, which are attached below, show the counted votes.

With all of the binding and non-binding votes:

First Round
1 1
2 13
4 23
5 27
6 4
Second Round(Drop 1)
2 13
4 23
5 27
6 5
Third Round (Drop 6)
2 15
4 24
5 29
Forth Round (Drop 2)
4 35
5 31
-- Owen

I independently counted all of the votes as well and came to the same
conclusions that Owen did. Even considering those who voted with a different
subject line, the outcome was indeed the same.

Thanks to all who participated!

--
Aaron T. Myers
Software Engineer, Cloudera

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ok,
>    I collated the votes filtering on the subject line. I know that method
> missed some of the non-binding votes, but I don't believe it changed the
> outcome.
>
> With the binding votes from the PMC:
>
>
>
>  First Round  2 4  4 4  5 6  6 1    Second Round (Drop 6)  2 5  4 4  5 6    Third
> Round (Drop 4)  2 8  5 7
>
> So in the very close race, #2 wins. My spreadsheets, which are attached
> below, show the counted votes.
>
> With all of the binding and non-binding votes:
>
>
>
>  First Round  1 1  2 13  4 23  5 27  6 4    Second Round(Drop 1)  2 13  4
> 23  5 27  6 5    Third Round (Drop 6)  2 15  4 24  5 29    Forth Round
> (Drop 2)  4 35  5 31
>
> -- Owen
>
>
>
>
>

So there is a significant difference between the community of developers and
the PMC here and we definitely don't really have a consensus.

One good suggestion that I had was from Eli.  It sounds to me like his
objection (and possibly related objections) to the logo that I proposed was
based on the fact that the logo that I proposed matched the color scheme on
our web site.  In a side conversation (that obviously didn't officially
happen, being off-list), it seemed that he would be willing to push for
support for a logo with more flexibility in the way that core logo is
encircled.

In our conversation, it seems that a significant portion of the divergence
of opinion may simply be that different groups are attuned to their own
company or local community color palettes which makes logos tuned to other
color combinations much less attractive.

How about we have a logo family where the yellow elephant and "Powered by"
text is the core and the circle or its graphical equivalent is optional?

The intent would be to allow designers the freedom to help the logo conform
to their local look while maintaining a core identity?

Can we get consensus around that?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ok,
>    I collated the votes filtering on the subject line. I know that method
> missed some of the non-binding votes, but I don't believe it changed the
> outcome.
>
> With the binding votes from the PMC:
>
>
>
>  First Round  2 4  4 4  5 6  6 1    Second Round (Drop 6)  2 5  4 4  5 6    Third
> Round (Drop 4)  2 8  5 7
>
> So in the very close race, #2 wins. My spreadsheets, which are attached
> below, show the counted votes.
>
> With all of the binding and non-binding votes:
>
>
>
>  First Round  1 1  2 13  4 23  5 27  6 4    Second Round(Drop 1)  2 13  4
> 23  5 27  6 5    Third Round (Drop 6)  2 15  4 24  5 29    Forth Round
> (Drop 2)  4 35  5 31
>
> -- Owen
>
>
>
>
>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So there is a significant difference between the community of developers and
> the PMC here and we definitely don't really have a consensus.
>
> One good suggestion that I had was from Eli.  It sounds to me like his
> objection (and possibly related objections) to the logo that I proposed was
> based on the fact that the logo that I proposed matched the color scheme on
> our web site.  In a side conversation (that obviously didn't officially
> happen, being off-list), it seemed that he would be willing to push for
> support for a logo with more flexibility in the way that core logo is
> encircled.
>

Hey Ted,

Off list I said I thought any of the logos were acceptable choices
modulo some design tweaks, and that if the circle logo concept is
accepted it would be good to adjust the circle itself.  But the PMC
did not vote for the circle logo, so it's a mute point.

Thanks,
Eli

On Jun 24, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
> Off list I said I thought any of the logos were acceptable choices
> modulo some design tweaks, and that if the circle logo concept is
> accepted it would be good to adjust the circle itself.  But the PMC
> did not vote for the circle logo, so it's a mute point.

Clearly the PMC is full of circle-phobes.

On 24/06/11 17:54, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
>>
>> Off list I said I thought any of the logos were acceptable choices
>> modulo some design tweaks, and that if the circle logo concept is
>> accepted it would be good to adjust the circle itself.  But the PMC
>> did not vote for the circle logo, so it's a mute point.
>
> Clearly the PMC is full of circle-phobes.
>

it's why I work in a cube

5,6,3

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/06/11 17:54, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> Off list I said I thought any of the logos were acceptable choices
>>> modulo some design tweaks, and that if the circle logo concept is
>>> accepted it would be good to adjust the circle itself.  But the PMC
>>> did not vote for the circle logo, so it's a mute point.
>>
>> Clearly the PMC is full of circle-phobes.
>>
>
> it's why I work in a cube
>

Owen,

looks like your non-PMC list doesn't account for about 13 or so user votes
(which we cast under different subjects and making total number of #4 equals
37) as you can see here http://tinyurl.com/3j6629h

Hope it helps
  Cos

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:35AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> Ok,
>    I collated the votes filtering on the subject line. I know that method missed some of the non-binding votes, but I don't believe it changed the outcome.
>
> With the binding votes from the PMC:
>
>
>
> First Round
> 2 4
> 4 4
> 5 6
> 6 1
> Second Round (Drop 6)
> 2 5
> 4 4
> 5 6
> Third Round (Drop 4)
> 2 8
> 5 7
>
>  
> So in the very close race, #2 wins. My spreadsheets, which are attached below, show the counted votes.
>
> With all of the binding and non-binding votes:
>
>
>
> First Round
> 1 1
> 2 13
> 4 23
> 5 27
> 6 4
> Second Round(Drop 1)
> 2 13
> 4 23
> 5 27
> 6 5
> Third Round (Drop 6)
> 2 15
> 4 24
> 5 29
> Forth Round (Drop 2)
> 4 35
> 5 31
>
>
> -- Owen
>

Is there a reason we can't have 2 powered by logo's that vendors etc can choose from?

On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

> Owen,
>
> looks like your non-PMC list doesn't account for about 13 or so user votes
> (which we cast under different subjects and making total number of #4 equals
> 37) as you can see here http://tinyurl.com/3j6629h
>
> Hope it helps
>  Cos
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:35AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> Ok,
>>   I collated the votes filtering on the subject line. I know that method missed some of the non-binding votes, but I don't believe it changed the outcome.
>>
>> With the binding votes from the PMC:
>>
>>
>>
>> First Round
>> 2 4
>> 4 4
>> 5 6
>> 6 1
>> Second Round (Drop 6)
>> 2 5
>> 4 4
>> 5 6
>> Third Round (Drop 4)
>> 2 8
>> 5 7
>>
>>
>> So in the very close race, #2 wins. My spreadsheets, which are attached below, show the counted votes.
>>
>> With all of the binding and non-binding votes:
>>
>>
>>
>> First Round
>> 1 1
>> 2 13
>> 4 23
>> 5 27
>> 6 4
>> Second Round(Drop 1)
>> 2 13
>> 4 23
>> 5 27
>> 6 5
>> Third Round (Drop 6)
>> 2 15
>> 4 24
>> 5 29
>> Forth Round (Drop 2)
>> 4 35
>> 5 31
>>
>>
>> -- Owen
>>

I would propose that the core be specified with some look and feel
flexibility.

Logo 2, for instance, is basically the same logo as log 4 except for font
changes and the circle.  If we consider the circle to be totally optional
and intended just to make the logo fit in with the rest of the site, then
the basic idea of *that* yellow elephant with *those* words can be the
definition.

How does that sound?  I am happy to have an artist produce some variants on
logo 2 that have

a) larger font

b) various sizes

Would that be useful?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is there a reason we can't have 2 powered by logo's that vendors etc can
> choose from?
>
> On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> > Owen,
> >
> > looks like your non-PMC list doesn't account for about 13 or so user
> votes
> > (which we cast under different subjects and making total number of #4
> equals
> > 37) as you can see here http://tinyurl.com/3j6629h
> >
> > Hope it helps
> >  Cos
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:35AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> >> Ok,
> >>   I collated the votes filtering on the subject line. I know that method
> missed some of the non-binding votes, but I don't believe it changed the
> outcome.
> >>
> >> With the binding votes from the PMC:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> First Round
> >> 2    4
> >> 4    4
> >> 5    6
> >> 6    1
> >> Second Round (Drop 6)
> >> 2    5
> >> 4    4
> >> 5    6
> >> Third Round (Drop 4)
> >> 2    8
> >> 5    7
> >>
> >>
> >> So in the very close race, #2 wins. My spreadsheets, which are attached
> below, show the counted votes.
> >>
> >> With all of the binding and non-binding votes:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> First Round
> >> 1    1
> >> 2    13
> >> 4    23
> >> 5    27
> >> 6    4
> >> Second Round(Drop 1)
> >> 2    13
> >> 4    23
> >> 5    27
> >> 6    5
> >> Third Round (Drop 6)
> >> 2    15
> >> 4    24
> >> 5    29
> >> Forth Round (Drop 2)
> >> 4    35
> >> 5    31
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Owen
> >>
>
>