Revert feet logo #97
Revert feet logo #97
Conversation
|
We will keep this one until everything is fixed, and we chose a new one properly. |
|
The feet logo is not encumbered, this one is. |
|
@icarito This all started by your taking unilateral action based on your opinion about the XO logo being encumbered. And yet there is evidence (presented by Sean) to suggest that the feet graphic may be encumbered. And yet that doesn't seem to bother you. And you continue to take unilateral action. When did Laura get commit access? How can you possibly accuse people (still unsubstantiated) of conflict of interest and then have your wife help you override the opinion of some of our core developers by merging your commit. That is more unilateral behaviour that is certainly not in the spirit of a community project. Feel free to fork Sugar Artwork and change it in any way you want. But we have a team a developers and a design team that need to be consulted when making changes to our core product. |
|
I should add that the feet graphic is amateur and an embarrassment to an organization that has taken design seriously from Day One. |
|
Walter, I'll be happy to discuss with a Design Team if there is one. Thanks for being honest about your taste. The image is purposely amateur. If you want my feedback, regarding your design, I would like to say that I find the XO Child icon very ugly, looks to me like a it is crucified. |
|
Your actions don't reflect your words. If you would be happy to discuss changes with the design team, you would have consulted with us before taking unilateral action. As far as your finding the XO distasteful., there have been 10 years for you to propose a change. That this issue we discussed and settled in 2011 (you may not agree and are welcome to raise the issue again) is suddenly urgent and needing your unilateral action is an absurd position. |
|
As I mentioned previously, I have raised this topic over the years to no echo. The issue turned urgent for me when I realized OLPC was making a release of Sugar. |
|
"Your actions don't reflect your words" - that is a strong accusation - If you need clarification on anything, ask directly. I strive to be consistent. |
|
As Sean pointed out, you received much more than an echo in 2011. Sugar Labs has been making releases since 2008. Suddenly it was so urgent that you had to take unilateral action? Laughable. |
|
"Your actions don't reflect your words" You said you'd be happy to consult with the design team, and yet you acted unilaterally. Do you need further clarification? |
|
Yes, @walterbender who is this "Design Team" and where can I reach them? |
|
In addition, Christian. who was part of the original design team, has told us he'd be willing to help out when necessary. Something as critical as the xo-computer icon is a situation where we might want to ask his help. |
|
Fine, I've just added myself and Laura to this team and will contact the coordinators directly for either helping us reach an inclusive process or properly stepping down as coordinators so others can take over. |
|
Note also the two coordinators of Design Team are former OLPC employees. |
|
It is not "fine". You've violated the community trust by acting unilaterally. And you continue to do so, reverting commits. You've made unsubstantiated accusations about community members. That is not "fine". |
|
When have I made what accusations? |
|
Just yesterday in the previous PR you accused Gonzalo and I of a conflict of interest. I ask for an explanation. None was given. |
|
And now you imply that Gary and Manual are somehow "tainted". |
|
@walterbender I most certainly did not. I said that about James Cameron. Are you not involved with OLPC at all now? I have no means of knowing and much less the desire to accuse anyone, just to have a Free Sugar as in Freedom, not just in name but in reality. |
|
Just saying that to establish that I don't think they are impartial. |
|
If Gary or Manual were ever employees of OLPC, it was years ago and very much part time. Maybe a few consulting gigs? All of that was years ago. To suggest that they are somehow doing OLPC's bidding is nuts. Evidence? |
|
Walter, why do you twist my words? I did not suggest they were doing their bidding. In fact, they aren't doing anything at all, and have not stepped down from their roles (which goes against our Code of Conduct). |
|
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Sebastian Silva ***@***.***> wrote:
Walter, why do you twist my words? I did not suggest they were doing their
bidding. In fact, they aren't doing anything at all, and have not stepped
down from their roles (which goes against our Code of Conduct).
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#97 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADz74SDRf49pa8vGBh_3itI0ZbTFAQghks5siRZIgaJpZM4PW7OX>
.
How else should I interpret your suggestion that they are impartial because
they once worked for OLPC?
…--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
|
|
@walterbender You have not answered, are you still involved with OLPC in any way? It would be good for you to clarify this point. |
|
I did not see the question regarding my involvement with OLPC. But I will answer it here. No. FWIW, I was co-founder of OLPC and an original member of the design team for Sugar. While I was at OLPC, we agreed to make Sugar (and Sugar Artwork) licensed under the GPL. I left OLPC to found Sugar Labs in order to continue to promote FOSS. I did some consulting for OLPC~ 6 to 7 years ago because they wanted some custom apps written (all GPL). |
|
@icarito Playing your game: You have not answered my question regarding how I am to interpret your "impartial" assertion. |
|
Yes, impartial means "not biased". |
|
Yes. You said they are not impartial: i.e.., not not bias, i.e., bias because of an alleged relationship with OLPC. Is there some other interpretation for your comment? How did I twist your words? (Another accusation you made) |
|
"Twisting my words" is replacing them and adding your own to convey a different meaning than intended. Please, don't do that. |
|
I await your explanation of how I am misinterpreting your words. You can say that I am but I think I deserve an explanation of how I am doing so. |
As mentioned in the sugar-devel list, this "feet" logo could be a violation of the GNOME foundation trademark.