On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:01:14 +0530, Vinay Pawar <zoyd(a)gmx.net> wrote:
It would be boring to have (fsf|gnu).org.in to be
phpnuke/slash/squish/zope and the likes.
The present consensus is to use plain html for static content and zope
for dynamic content (such as free software directory, news, events,
ongoing projects etc). The choice of zope for the latter is actually
very appropriate because it enables collaborative development; groups
of authenticated volunteers can contribute entries to the zope
web-applications in an organised manner. (Nagarjuna or Arun will
please correct me if I am wrong here)
As for the choice of squishdot for the forum, is there a need for an
argument? Of course, there may be alternatives, but since it is
already in place, let us accept in and carry on with the real work of
providing content as you have rightly stressed. But I don't understand
what you mean by describing these solutions as "boring."
I volunteer to built the (fsf|gnu).org.in website,
backend and frontend.
Could someone in the Board or close to it please maintain
a offsite list of the tasks at hand and the volunteers working
Vinay, there is no need to involve high level entities :) like the
Board here. We will try and do everything by consensus right here on
this list. I hope you have seen the first post in the archive of this
list for some background.
My views on the FSF-I logo and logos in general.
Logos are for easy identification of an entity.
A Logo is similar to a brand. It needs time for people to
associate a logo with an entity. The artwork of a logo must
be such that it can be presented in all kinds of media.
The most tricky and expensive is the print media. There are
very different rules for offset multicolor, digital, screen,
block printing, etc. The logo should not loose it's correctness
and preferrably also it's effectiveness. There should not be
a dependency on color.
Sure. This point has already been made before.
The GNU head as it is works well for
The GNU head will almost never be used alone.
It will be accompanied with the name
'Free Software Foundation of India', on letter heads,
visiting cards, brochures, flyers, etc.
We should have the organisation's name as part of the logo precisely
to make the addition of the organisation's name in text unnecessary!
With the incorporation of the organisation's name and URL the logo
becomes independent and self-contained. We can then, for example,
place just the logo on other websites (of individuals, like minded
organisations etc.) without any need for an accompanying caption. We
can also, for example, make stickers of just the logo. Flyers,
brochures etc then need to have just the logo at the top and it will
serve the purpose of a title and url-referrer without any addition of
text. The advantages are innumerable.
The Linux penguin doesn't have 'Linux' and
as a part of it's logo, nor do most logos. It was just a matter
of time that people associated the penguin with 'Linux'.
We are mixing up brands and organisations here. Most organisations'
logos *do* have their names in them. (And a large number of
organisations' logos are actually nothing but a distinct rendering of
their name and nothing else!) Besides, we can't wait for the Indian
public to recognise the Gnu head and automatically associate it with
FSF-I. That would take a really long time indeed. Even when we do
reach that utopian period when people recognise the Gnu head as they
now recognise the Mercedes emblem for example, they wouldn't know
whether to associate it with the GNU project, FSF-America or
We cannot have a logo which is so completely dependent on accompanying
text to qualify its association. That defeats the purpose of a logo.
Khuzaima A. Lakdawala