Let's pick a new logo!

I don't mind the three-tiered tree design, but I think the bottom tier is too tall - the corners look too close to the edge of the logo, and it makes the tiers look asymmetrical.

This is just a rough sketch, but…

I like this a lot.

Thank you all for the feedback!

@nev great sketch, I love the "rough" look! We can go on and simplify that to get a set of scalable icons (from favicon up to a t-shirt print), would you like to collaborate?

Yes, let's work together! I haven't really worked with vector graphics before, though. Shall we take it to Masto/email?

sorry for the very late reply, but I'm currently in Iceland with very little connectivity :) I'm glad you like the idea of working together, let's get in touch after the 5th of september!

I've tried to vote but it doesn't seem to be going through?

@michelekipiel @nev Do you want to work together to harmonize your drafts of the white trees into a final version that we can propose to the full group?

I would be delighted if someone replaced the current icon pic for this Loomio group with @nev's initial sketch. It's so cheerful.

Cropped and done, @thomasbeckett

So nice! Thanks.

@michelekipiel and @nev, y'all on track to formalize a final version? Should we be using Nev's sketch more widely in the meantime?

Hi @matthewcropp , not yet. I only just got back home from work and need to sleep (I landed a 2.30AM last night). I'll get in touch with @nev tomorrow to kick off the collaboration.

Despite liking Neville's logo a lot, I believe we should avoid confusion and stick to the current, temporary logo until we finalize the new version (outside of Loomio, that is).

Agreed with Michele. Previously there was quite strong support for Michele's work, so I don't see why we would abandon that.

How are things going on this, @michelekipiel @nev?

Almost there :) Sorry for the long silence, we''ve been working behind the courtains... @nev is taking care of the final touches on the logo and I'm shortilisting the best fonts to match. Hopefully we'll have a full proposal for you to evaluate by the end of the week. And I think you''ll like it quite a lot ;)

Hi all,

As Neville isn't 100% satisfied with the logo and is still working on the latest details (namely, the way it looks when reduced to favicon size), find attached a shortlist of potential typography options matched to the WIP logo. Feel free to express your preferences :)

I would state preference for the second text.

I would go for the first or fourth. Thanks you two!

I like 2 or 5 - @michelekipiel, do you want to do a poll to aggregate folks preferences? Dot vote where everyone gets 2 or 3 dots, or something?

There should def be a poll, it would be easier than reading through the responses. Creating it now.

(I would just like to mention that approval voting is easier / clearer and has some properties that dot voting doesn't have, like being favourite and clone safe http://rangevoting.org/CompChart.html)

Thank you for setting this up! :)

Added the link to the list of options to the description of the poll.

Hi all,

I took the liberty to elaborate a few logo layout proposals based on the almost final design by @nev and the most liked typography option so far. Let me know how you like it! :)

Thanks,
MK

For me your attachment does not have a mime type, so I need to download it then hit it with an viewer.

My bad! Attached is a version with the proper .png extension.

Love it all!

Looks like we have a winner :) Thank you all! I'll prepare a draft reference one-sheeter with all the rules on how to use the logo in the coming days for you to vote.

In the meantime, let's decide under what licence we want to publish our new logo (I'll double check for the font: it's free but I don't know under which licence).

Love how these turned out :) Thank you @michelekipiel and @nev ! Can't wait to start using them. Is it necessary to vote once more?

Thank you! Glad you like it. I guess the only thing left to vote would be the licence part, as far as I can tell.

As soon as you figure that our, Imma need a t-shirt or hat or something... :)

@nev what would be your preferred licence option of the logo design? Personally I'm fine with a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (though we should figure out if, for instance, selling t-shirts with our own logo as a means to raise funds would infringe on the NC part...). Is anyone with more experience in licencing willing to help? Thanks!

@michelekipiel, just because we release the logo under an NC license it doesn't mean we cannot use it in a commercial way.

Since this is a logo/identity/trademark it would be a be a bit weird to release it under a specific copyright license. Eg, if a for-profit newspaper uses the logo in an article about social.coop it wouldn't be bad, but at the same time, a third party selling t-shirts would be bad.

I am not familiar with trademark law but we might be covered by default.

Eg, if a for-profit newspaper uses the logo in an article about social.coop it wouldn't be bad, but at the same time, a third party selling t-shirts would be bad.

Yup, this concerns me as well. Anyone else willing to comment?

If not, I'll put the CC BY-SA-NC 3.0 licencing to the vote in a couple days.
As for the font, it should be GPL, though I'm trying to contact the package maintainer to have confirmation.

Thanks!

@michelekipiel @nev Great work! I'd go with the most permissive (CC BY). I'd actually count it as a win if people tried to sell social.coop t-shirts!

Looks great. Good work, folks! Makes me want to play around with inkscape.

It's important to consider both trademark and copyright policies. One regulates use of the name and logo to identify things, the other is primarily concerned with protecting creative expression. There is, of course, considerable overlap in areas like t-shirt merchandise.

At Wikimedia we started out with very retrictive copyright terms on the logos, but ended up releasing them under CC-BY-SA in 2014 (see the blog post for background). The Wikimedia logos are, however, registered trademarks, and you can't use them, e.g., to set up a misleading copycat site under the same name, even if it's a noncommercial one. Wikimedia's trademark policy is pretty permissive and, I think, very easy to understand.

I'm assuming social.coop is not a registered trademark yet. Since enforcability of unregistered marks is more limited, it may be a good idea to start with a more restrictive license on the copyright side (e.g., the NC restriction). Down the road, ponying up the $$$ for the trademark registrations may be a reasonable investment, and may make it possible to choose a Wikimedia-like model (permissive license on the logo augmented by trademark policy).