It 's a little too "round" for my taste, but this is an awesome work.
+1 for version >= 8 and stream, leaving the "legacy" versions as is.

I'll confess I sorta miss the colors. Single color on white is probably a lot easier to put onto things though.

Not an objection, just an observation.

I'll confess I sorta miss the colors. Single color on white is probably a lot easier to put onto things though.

The main motivation to retire colors was just that, reproduce the image on different media with more precision. Colors are difficult to reproduce exactly the same way, always. Not to mention that the same color may be seen differently by different people. In the way to make the visual identity stronger, the more consistent we reproduce the brand in different media the better. It is always speaking.

As well, it is just an opinion and a bit of the motivation behind the proposal.

@rbowen Thanks for bringing in this item, tracking this discussion to conclusion is one of the first things I know we both hoped to see on this new platform.

tl;dr This issue is asking for a decision before a properly lead discussion has taken place. The idiom here is, putting the cart before the horse. I'm -1 on having a definitive decision before having a definitive discussion.

(I like the new design ideas and how they solve problems, and I believe if we force a decision at this stage the answer will be "no", whereas I want to get to a "yes".)

In terms of the request stated here, I think the decision keeps getting requested before the discussion has occurred with the people who care about change/no-change. This is evident right here in this issue, which asks for a 'definitive answer' and gets back core discussion questions. I still don't feel the definitive discussion has occurred.

I know it's been frustrating especially for the designers to not be noticed when their discussion was taking place, and not responded to when requests for a decision were made.

But a few months back I wrote on centos-devel what I thought we needed to do in order to have the discussion that could lead to a decision.

What I had noticed is each request for decision caused more discussion to happen. Without a clear process with deadlines being laid out and followed, the discussion would be endless.

So I asked that the designers lead the process of having an open community discussion of some sort with the stakeholders (existing community members who care, including Board Directors), and that it include clear timelines and at least two rounds of active stakeholder design discussions followed each by a round of feedback with design iterations to discuss or (eventually) decide from.

Just speaking from my experience, changing the details of a brand plus the change management around that is all very sensitive. We want to do this right, regardless of the final decision of change or no-change.

What I wrote did not have process details; I'm not a designer nor experienced with leading that specific kind of change discussion. But having been in the stakeholder group a few times, the kinds of things I've seen include a concise visual walk through of the problems with the logo and how this addresses them; an open presentation made by a human in a video meeting going over that walk through step-by-step; Q&A following presentations; consideration of having to teach the problem/solution space to the many different learning styles you are working with; and so forth.

So I could imagine, for example, a video meeting presentation and discussion with designers, stakeholders, and interested people. This might need to be done a few times to accommodate availability; record and publish afterwards. Get together a list of stakeholders--start with who you know, put out a survey, etc.--and make sure those people have at least one meeting they can attend, and preferably some commitment to attend and engage, or watch recordings later and engage online with feedback. Then do the same thing with each stage of design iterations, as needed, especially if the discussion gets stalled or way off track and needs real-time interaction for focus and clarity.

I don't intend this as stop-energy more than going back to the "take it slow" energy the Board requested in February so as to make sure everyone feels heard and understood.

To be clear, I see Johnny's comment on the mailing list to be a -1, and was really just looking to get that formally stated as such. As long as that stands, the further discussion seems a bit moot.

To be clear, I see Johnny's comment on the mailing list to be a -1, and was really just looking to get that formally stated as such. As long as that stands, the further discussion seems a bit moot.

Isn't further discussion the point of a -1?

To be clear, I see Johnny's comment on the mailing list to be a -1, and was really just looking to get that formally stated as such. As long as that stands, the further discussion seems a bit moot.

Isn't further discussion the point of a -1?

Possibly. What I was trying to determine, with that remark, is whether we have a -1 veto from a director (No, we do not want a new logo). I don't see a lot of value in having an extended discussion of the details of the redesign if the answer is still going to be "no, we do not want a new logo."

To be clear, I see Johnny's comment on the mailing list to be a -1, and was really just looking to get that formally stated as such. As long as that stands, the further discussion seems a bit moot.
Isn't further discussion the point of a -1?

Possibly. What I was trying to determine, with that remark, is whether we have a -1 veto from a director (No, we do not want a new logo). I don't see a lot of value in having an extended discussion of the details of the redesign if the answer is still going to be "no, we do not want a new logo."

What I mean is that in consensus decision making as we're practising it, a -1 is a blocking vote, yes, but it is not a veto at the outset unless specifically so stated, e.g. "I am adamantly against any version of this idea, it's completely ludicrous, I'll sooner quit the project than see this idea approved -1" can be reasonably interpreted as someone completely blocked on the idea.

I do not think we've had the discussion about if we want a new logo, maybe partially from it being closely tied to the specific solutions proposed.

So then, yes, let's go back and talk through the problems with the current logo so we can reach consensus on the idea of updating the logo as a way to solve those problems.

What I've heard so far are two specific problems to solve that are seemingly in contradiction.

1. There are some important problems with the logo that can only be/are best fixed by changing it.
2. The CentOS logo is long-standing, recognizable, and part of our project's identity, and people are attached to it.

The Board has approved the new logo, as of the September board meeting.

Rich has asked Red Hat Brand for their opinion regarding next steps. Specifically 1) Do we need to formally register it and 2) can/should we go ahead and start using it before we have a resolution to 1?

I have asked the Red Hat Brand team once again for their opinion on these questions (2021-11-02) in advance of next week's board meeting. If we do not hear from them in that time, I propose that we move ahead with starting to use the logo immediately, as part of the CentOS Stream 9 Launch Announcement effort.

Red Hat Brand advises that we can (and should) go ahead and start using the new logo as soon as we are ready to do so. Usage is a critical part of defending the brand, so the sooner we start using it, the better.

The question of legally registering the brand can happen at our leisure and I will pursue this separately.

It sounds like we're clear to use this, if the board approves. We can put it on the agenda for the next board meeting. In the meantime, I'm going to assemble a list of places to use it and adjust the design to fit.

https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/5 is now closed and a logo chosen