Please reconsider existing alternate logo per new policy

[rhendric]

The committee has recently issued this statement on alternative logos:

The Haskell logo is an important part of our brand, and it's something we want to manage carefully. The committee may include alternate or updated logos from time to time for specific purposes, for example as part of a larger marketing or branding campaign.

While we appreciate creative submissions, PRs to add alternate logos are unlikely to be accepted unless they are tied to a specific active Haskell-related event, branding campaign, or address specific technical concerns, such as providing alternate sizes to support different screen resolutions, without altering the core concept of the logo.

We appreciate the community’s creativity and enthusiasm for Haskell, and encourage you to share your personal variations informally or within the community.

We will not be considering new logo submissions at this time.

As this represents a significant evolution of the committee's opinions from November¹, would the committee please reconsider its decision to keep the alternate logo added last year? It seems uncontroversial that it doesn't currently meet the standard set by the policy (i.e., tied to a specific event, part of a branding campaign, or technical). And I would like to avoid the feeling—unfounded though I think and hope it is!—that this policy could be a targeted response to the concepts I championed.

I am, as before, happy to submit a PR (or to help out in any other way useful to the committee—just ask!) but I thought that since this relitigates a previous decision, asking first would be less splashy.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I know this has been a bumpy journey.

Footnotes

1. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, were broadly that it's popular (irrelevant per the new policy) and harmless (the new policy implies that harm is done when a brand is not managed carefully), so why not? ↩

[Kleidukos]

@rhendric Your personal feud with this logo is really tiring.

[rhendric]

@Kleidukos, if it's tiring to be asked to apply the policy you just wrote to the single extant example of the subject of the policy, then something is very amiss. I apologize for contributing to your exhaustion and I hope you get the rest you need. (A friend tells me this sounds sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely and don't know how to make that more clear. From your GHC profile I understand you had an arm injury recently and while there's never a good time for that sort of thing, I feel bad about that coinciding with what to you must seem like terribly inconvenient questions.)

Don't worry, I am finished with asking about this until the committee chooses to revisit the topic—at which point, after all the flip-flopping on ‘most certainly’ temporary / it's permanent / but it's not special submit PRs / we will not consider PRs, who knows what the committee's opinion will be? Hope springs eternal that in the long run, consistency and fairness will triumph over whatever is going on here.

Edit: Oh, forgot to add: thank you for the prompt response. While it's not the response I hoped for, it's better to know where the question stands than to be left wondering.

[sshine]

The committee statement was:

PRs to add alternate logos are unlikely to be accepted unless [...]

We will not be considering new logo submissions at this time.

This addresses new logos, not existing logos.

The main difference between the existing alternative (uwu) logo and the rainbow logo is that the first one did not trigger a policy change. We can speculate as to why: Perhaps it was because it was met with objections. Perhaps after a period of time with a silly logo, the committee decided that more thought should be put into logos to enact a floodgate of logos that don't serve well. Perhaps they think the rainbow logo is not popular or harmless. All I can say from reading the statement is that the new policy appears to be practical, does not side with the proposer or the objector, and does not suggest that the uwu logo should be removed as a consequence of the policy. (I'm not sure how you read that into it. It seems like you just want to remove something if you can't add something.)