On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Niklas Frykholm wrote:

> In article <OFC0B91566.7BFF6B22-ON85256A3B.00213CF7 / raleigh.ibm.com>, Conrad
> Schneiker wrote:
>
> Designing a logo with a community process is hopeless. The only rational
> way of designing a logo is:
>
>   * Evil dictator picks an aribtrary logo.
>   * Everybody yells for three month about is ugliness, bad connotations
>     and amateurism (if designed by an amateur) or cost (if designed by a
>     professional).

    * Evil dictator says, ok, I made a mistake, please submit your
      ideas for a new mascot
    * Evil dictator repeats initial step by having some
      person/organization to redesign the logo. (Note, now they
      feel a little more inclined to accept the logo because it
      was redesigned with their input and they have less steam.)
      (Proceed with next step)

>   * When the steam runs out the logo is silently accepted and no one thinks
>     much more about it.
>
> I don't think we should change this widely accepted and scientific method.
> The only problem is that Matz seems to be a *good* dictator.

I've seen it work exactly as you say, except with the added two steps.
Interesting

Jim


=========================================================
Jim Freeze
jim / freeze.org
---------------------------------------------------------
No comment at this time.
http://www.freeze.org
=========================================================