19:00:30 #startmeeting reproducible-builds.org logo, meeting #1 19:00:30 Meeting started Wed Feb 21 19:00:30 2018 UTC. The chair is h01ger. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:30 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:59 Elio: with this we'll automatically have logs+a summary on http://meetbot.debian.net 19:01:16 #topic introductions / finding the agenda 19:01:25 Yep, cool. I used similar loggers in Fedora and other projects 19:01:44 1. brief introductions 19:01:44 2. agree on agenda 19:01:44 3. discussion/questions about the process (hopefully with finding a 19:01:44 volunteer to document this better than in my initial mail in this 19:01:44 thread.) 19:01:45 4. defintion of scope of work (logo, css, etc) 19:01:45 5. actual discussion about the logo design 19:01:47 6. agreeing on the next steps we would like to see implemented 19:01:47 7. finding the next irc meeting 19:01:49 What you had in the email 19:01:52 hi, i'm h01ger, and i unfortunatly need to leave at 20:00 UTC sharp 19:02:12 Elio: thanks for posting this, saving me from doing the same! :) 19:02:22 anything to add to the agenda? 19:02:37 I'd add the possiblity of working under the OTF umbrella 19:02:44 +everyone, please say 'hi' if you're here 19:02:58 hi 19:03:23 hi 19:03:26 Hi, Elio here, the guy who will hopefully get you a nice logo and visual identity 19:04:18 * vagrantc waves 19:04:38 http://whiteboard.debian.net/rblogo1_fb0644.wb has the agenda 19:04:53 #topic agreeing on the agenda 19:05:18 i guess we are fine with the agenda, but i'll give people 2 more minutes :) 19:05:37 (to "complain", comment, add, etc) 19:05:44 If we can discuss the OTF Usability Lab possiblity in 4 (which is also dependent on 5) yep we are good to go 19:06:22 thats what i ment, yes 19:06:57 #topic discussion/questions/documentation of *the process* 19:07:47 upfront: i'd be very happy if someone else than me could put this on the logo wiki page (or maybe a new subpage) 19:08:51 so we basically agreed to have 3 iterations, of suggestions by elio, than feedback by us, an irc meeting, and new suggestions by elio where this feedback should be included. 19:09:36 and all work is presented on https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Logo 19:09:46 Yes. Also, since it seems that contributors have a rather specific vision of how the logo and visuals should look like and communicate, we should decide on a concept which I will implement 19:10:09 and the mailinglist rb-general@l.d.o is used for communication, irc is optional (though would be nice), except for the meetings. 19:10:20 Elio: yes 19:11:05 Elio: though i think its a tough mix of "contributors have a rather specific vision of how the logo and visuals should look like" and "contributors are not experts in logo design" 19:11:10 ;) 19:11:39 hm, and we also said something about how we find consensus 19:11:48 on which logo path to take 19:12:39 right, we wanted to go by allowing people to rule out designs by saying "i cannot live with logo X", hoping this would not be destroyed by everybody hating another logo... 19:13:19 Yes, but conceptually speaking in symbols requires no knowledge design 19:13:22 we could also reverse this into "everybody has a say which logo they like" and then the winner of this used to direct Elio's work 19:13:32 Yes 19:13:46 are we talking about the logos already listed on the wiki, or coming up with a new list? 19:13:59 vagrantc: well 19:14:10 some of the later ones seem to have three different logos per item 19:14:15 vagrantc: both. (not a new list though, but maybe new ideas) 19:14:43 i think we should move one, and define the process later in the process. 19:15:06 move on = next topics until we are at 6. of the agenda where we discuss the actual drafts 19:15:32 Elio: are you fine with defining the process while we go? 19:15:37 i don't understand how we can discuss in greater detail while brushing aside the process ... but maybe i'm entirely missing something here 19:15:53 Well, I'm flexible in the process 19:16:20 if we agree that it should either be logo A or B, then we could just ask Elio to do new drafts based on A+B, and not discuss the process further now 19:16:21 From the mailing list I saw that people had strong feelings about certain designs 19:16:25 (an example) 19:16:59 A good first question is to ask whether any of the logos is remotely close to a final concept you'd like to see? 19:17:17 Maybe not visually, but shape-wise or even conceptually 19:17:19 * vagrantc likes one contender better than all the others 19:17:28 Which is vagrantc? 19:17:32 Elio: there is also the difficulty of strong feelings which the person doesnt mind if they are ignored and strong feelings by someone who is a drive by contributor etc... we need to consider everybodys feelings, i think, and then ignore some of them 19:17:51 Elio: vagrantc: please stop this now. lets go with the agenda 19:18:10 next topic is funding.. then scope.. then discussion of the logos 19:18:27 then agreeing next steps and then next meeting 19:18:29 bah. 19:19:03 h01ger: i don't see the agenda being followed or anything, so i'm not sure what you mean 19:19:13 ("… and then ignore some of them" made me grin) 19:19:26 lamby: :D 19:19:42 #agreed we define the process along the way 19:19:48 #topic funding 19:19:51 agreed by who? 19:19:56 by Elio 19:20:28 i've got to say, i'm a bit agitated here 19:20:45 vagrantc: i need to leave in 40min, sorry for being pushing, but you said you dont see the agenda being followed, which i think was because you didnt follow it 19:21:07 and noone objected to defining the process as we go, so i thought we agreed on this and Elio explicitly said yes 19:21:31 and Elio needs to work with us, so he is really the one who needs to agree to work with this "mess" ;) 19:21:48 so, funding? 19:22:06 I don't want to complicate it even more so I'm fine working with the process you agree on. As long as we make progress and don't bikeshed that is 19:22:08 Yes, funding 19:22:43 So this takes a bit of time and to get it right, a considerable amount of time needs to be invested in. 19:22:50 * vagrantc finds making a process as you go prone to poor decisions 19:23:33 * h01ger approached OTF today and asked whether we can get the logo work funded by them. answer was: sure, please apply the usual way, we'll see 19:23:41 Vagrantc, I think you should offer alternative solutions instead of identifying a problem solely. But then again, probably the best time for that is after we finish the agenda 19:23:51 I can stick around for longer after Holger leaves as well 19:24:14 Elio: i hear you, i just feel like as soon as i type something the it's deemed off-topic, so i'm at a loss 19:24:31 Elio: not sure what to discuss about funding right now 19:24:46 i will apply for OTF funding this 19:24:56 and will let Elio review it before sending 19:25:10 Will we do a Plan B or think about it if Plan A fails? 19:25:52 OTF funding is also related with 5. in the agenda, the scope of work 19:25:55 plan B would probably be to ask another fundation, eg ford, or wau holland 19:26:38 good point that this is tied to 5. :) 19:26:46 Okay, if there is not much more to funding, we can move on to 5? 19:27:05 Anyone any other points to 4? 19:27:24 #info if plan A fails (funding by OTF), we will try plan B and C (funding by ford or wau holland foundation) 19:27:45 What sort of numbers are we thinking of re. funding? 19:28:29 Independently. around 2k 19:28:32 As in… very roughly, are we talking $50, $500, $5000. 19:28:33 cool 19:28:44 Elio: USD or EUR? :) 19:29:09 Well, USD then :p 19:29:15 I can do a logo with less 19:29:22 But the deliverables take time as well 19:29:24 #info we need around 2k USD 19:29:26 Coming up with the visual language 19:29:28 patterns 19:29:43 Elio: i rather have you come up with a whole set.. 19:29:46 If you want and Plan A fails. We can break down the costs into smaller milestones 19:29:52 Yes, that would be best 19:30:16 Let's tie this in with 5 now, since funding is related to scope of work 19:30:22 #topic defintion of scope of work (logo, css(es), etc) 19:30:30 If Plan A with OTF succeeds. I can probably do even more deliverables 19:30:43 Since OTF will pay us 19:30:52 i wrote css(es) now as we have two websites, www.reproducible-builds.org and tests.reproducible-builds.org 19:31:18 that seems like a bigger scope than just a logo 19:31:23 the design of the latter, on tests.r-b.o/debian is debianish 19:31:26 (to state the obvious) 19:31:57 there is also our blog, which should have the same css style 19:32:00 If we go into anything more than visual design (including CSS) and the deliverables in the final form are expected by me, I need to involve more people, such as frontend devs 19:32:10 should the diffoscope output follow? 19:32:29 What I'd imagine is creating a complete style guide and patterns 19:32:31 h01ger: belated pong 19:32:33 Elio: what do you have in mind when you say "deliverables"? 19:32:46 emaste: hi & later, in a r-b logo meeting right now... 19:33:22 I'm no frontend developer, so CSS and other technical tasks are probably not a good fit for me alone 19:33:34 ah! 19:33:45 so, with css 2k would not be enough? 19:34:22 It might be, might be not. I'd say to be sure that a style guide without CSS would be less than 2k 19:34:24 * h01ger is still curious if there are other deliverables... 19:34:40 I just haven't worked doing CSS deliverables in the past so I might under or overestimate 19:35:00 * h01ger fears a simple style guide would be useless, or to say it more mildly: would not be used and thus.. 19:35:07 Okay, what I have in mind is a similar thing like I did for The Tor Project 19:35:16 It's not "simple" 19:35:23 hehe 19:35:32 CSS is hard. :) 19:35:36 And also not useless, you can see by Tor's example 19:35:39 s#a simple#just a# 19:35:42 https://styleguide.torproject.org/ 19:35:46 thanks 19:36:18 ok, thats a css 19:36:25 just not ours adopted to it 19:36:31 :) 19:36:46 Yeah this has been adapted by a static one I created 19:37:01 I could do a similar thing, involving a bit our frontend developer at Ura as well 19:37:08 * h01ger just decided to stay another hour so we can have this meeting as long as needed / at least 30min longer. just need to catch a last train then.. 19:37:38 Anyway, if you want something similar to Tor's one, it could fit in 2k 19:38:19 And it's also a better sell for OTF, as you are requesting a style guide to improve usability of your projects you offer 19:38:35 * h01ger thinks thats good, as that results in a bootstrap theme, which we should be able to use "on our own". and because thats less money, so finding funds should be easier 19:38:37 So let's not talk too much about money 19:38:47 I am positive Plan A will work 19:39:36 so, agreed, scope is logo and styleguide? 19:39:47 Living Style guide 19:40:03 Visual Identity And Living Style Guide 19:40:18 that includes fonts to use that work well together etc? 19:40:24 * h01ger wants a matching kitchen wallpaper 19:40:40 Yep, and other visual elements which are good on posters, banners, websites 19:40:52 Elio: living is a cruicial phrase here? 19:40:58 wallpaper material indeed 19:41:12 Well yes. Styleguides are usually PDF's 19:41:26 and a "Living" style guide is a... ? 19:41:37 Having a website which fetches data from a git repo is considered "living" 19:41:38 Elio: we want the styleguide as html like tor 19:41:42 ok 19:41:53 Because you update the code and the styleguide gets updated 19:42:17 sounds more ideal than a PDF. :) 19:42:26 Yes, it's a better investment 19:42:28 #agreed scope is logo and styleguide.git (with html output) 19:42:37 next topic? 19:42:52 Where are your git repos hosted? 19:43:03 Elio: next question please 19:43:05 :) 19:43:22 Elio: git repositories may be in a transition period 19:43:23 we are on alioth.debian.org, which is going away to salsa.debian.org, but havent migrated yet 19:43:28 alioth goes down in 2 months or less 19:43:44 we also have automatically updated clones on github 19:44:06 Okay, I might need someone's help as I don't have much experience of git outside GitHub and GitLab 19:44:09 nice thing about git is it's generally not hard to move from one to another 19:44:14 for technicalities 19:44:15 Elio: so use whatever git provider you prefer. github is fine 19:44:25 Okay, sounds good 19:44:45 salsa.debian.org is a github instance, but i'm really not sure i want to move r-b.o stuff to it, cause its debian 19:45:06 this seems a bit off-topic, though 19:45:25 yup 19:45:27 So 6. actual discussion about the logo design? 19:45:48 #topic discussion about the logo drafts on https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Logo 19:47:11 s@salsa.debian.org is a github instance@salsa.debian.org is a gitlab instance@ ;-) 19:48:32 So shoot anything you have to say about the current state of the logo concepts? 19:48:34 so there are a fair number of opionions already out there on the existing logos 19:48:53 #8 is okish, #11 is a good idea but dunno how to implement it, #12 is a good idea, but needs work, but i like it! #13 too. #15 as well. #17 is also great. #18 i dont like _without text_, eg i like the left one on https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Logo?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=RB_7.png but then i think the logo should also be good without text 19:48:59 my 2 cent 19:49:06 the others i mostly dislike 19:49:11 i have a strong preference for #8 and #17 19:49:32 #18 A+B are maybe interesting 19:49:56 18B wont work, i think, too subtile the colors are 19:50:05 well, i guess #18-20 A+B are very similar 19:50:48 oh, right i stopped at 18, didnt notice 19+20 were different :/ (sorry) 19:51:15 I think #17 turned out promising (but sorry to toot my own horn, especially as a newcomer/drive-by-contributor so far) 19:51:42 #17 is basically inspired by #8 19:51:45 ? 19:52:18 yes (i changed the arrows so they show convergence and of course the visual style) 19:52:24 Are the arrows on purpose like that on 17? 19:52:28 Or by accident? 19:52:45 So if they would point to the next arrow that would be wrong? 19:52:49 on purpose: the concept is that 1 source may be built multiple times but these will lead to the same result 19:53:04 main reason i like #17 is the arrows show a dirvergent flow with a convergent result 19:53:24 Yeah I just thought so. That makes me like the concept more 19:53:36 raboof: totally fine! (tooting your horn as a newcomer) - i was more aiming at people who do that *and* then dont stop, never ;) so, please, toot, as i guess you got my point :) 19:53:40 though maybe the beginning and end could be more clearly distinguished from the processes? 19:53:48 I can do a quick draft right now as we speaking 19:54:01 i also liked the RB in the middle from #8 19:55:04 #8 to me too much looks like a design from the 1950s to me. to sharp corners, straight edges, etc 19:55:27 what i like about #17 is it is a relatively simple shape that would be recognizable at various sizes that actually has some conceptual relevence to the project 19:56:00 yeah 19:57:03 often hard to embed meaning as well as branding in a logo, but i think it's nice when it's there 19:58:11 So I think we have a pattern of 8 and 17 here, right? 19:58:34 :) 19:58:39 well, only 3 people said something.. 19:58:52 but yes, indeed ;p 19:59:04 OK: I think #17 is good too 19:59:40 so, since we're making the process up as we go... how do we gain confidence in that as a proposal with so little input? 20:00:16 post to the list as "at the meeting we proposed this as a strong candidate" ? 20:00:22 vagrantc: we post to the list 20:00:32 heh. 20:01:14 but i would suggest to frame it as "the irc meeting has decided, X and Y (and you were all invited so dont complain now)" ;p 20:01:23 s#frame#phrase# 20:01:47 The initial mailing list also indicated light favor in 17 afair 20:02:02 also, iirc, 8+17 were also the winners when we had this discusson on the list 2 months ago 20:02:38 so who writes that mail? ;) 20:02:58 assuming we are done with the discussion for now, and want to proceed... 20:04:25 i can write a mail... 20:04:27 now i wonder, do we agree on "elio should provide new drafts based on 8+17" or 17 alone or? 20:04:33 vagrantc: \o? 20:04:35 i'd probably not word it quite as harshly as h01ger suggested 20:04:36 vagrantc: \o/ 20:04:47 vagrantc: even more \o/ for that! :) 20:04:53 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/N5yz79wU/17%20draft%202 20:05:25 Elio: hui! quite different 20:05:42 Elio: first looks a bit overly busy 20:05:52 Indeed. hence I did the 2nd one 20:05:59 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/CZtxxp8W/17%20draft%203 20:06:09 maybe when suggesting new drafts based on old drafts the old drafts should be included too, so we can say "we want the old stuff". and yes, the 2nd is better, but for me still too much 20:06:12 i like the diamond shape 20:06:20 Maybe we don't need the square in the middle 20:06:30 on draft 3 i like the upper one better 20:06:33 Me too, there were concerns of a swastika however 20:06:54 the diamond shape seeming swastika-like? 20:07:05 Elio: re: process and presenting drafts for real: please put all images on the wiki... probably a new subpage.. 20:07:15 I will 20:07:25 so https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Logo/Round1 instead of appending to https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Logo 20:07:40 so 20:07:40 or maybe moving the content on Logo to a subpage? 20:07:46 if we go for a square it might be best to have the arrows from top-left to bottom-right? but I liked the 'diamond' orientation as well ;) 20:07:54 #agreed we like to see proposal / variations of #8 and #17 20:08:06 indeed perhaps the square in the middle can go - and perhaps the dots don't need to be so prominent? 20:08:18 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/9tnLMkeO/draft4 20:08:31 inside each of the dots is a smaller version of the logo 20:08:32 You'd want this to work as a favicon, so all elements should be similarly sized 20:08:40 infinitely recursive logo 20:08:41 But maybe the dots could be a tiny bit smaller 20:08:41 :) 20:08:59 That's a good idea for a gif or animation I guess 20:09:00 on draft 4 the upper one, but that one is quite far from #17 ;) 20:09:21 Visually of course it's different. The concept is the same however 20:09:27 #topic agreeing on the next steps 20:09:33 From what I get people like 17 because of the notion and concept 20:09:57 .oO( "agreeing on the next steps we want to see implemented" was the original topic title ) 20:10:15 Elio: also the colors. (as they match the current r-b.o website) 20:10:31 which i understand is a chicken+egg thing 20:10:35 The colors should be totally not considered right now I'd say 20:10:37 (I liked the 'style' of #17 as well though I wasn't sure about some of the proportions - but I can see how it might not work that well in really small instances?) 20:10:38 but it still contributes 20:10:57 We should overdo the colors as well as blue is not enough at all to server your identity 20:11:22 raboof true. I will try to do a version which hs more of that style though 20:11:42 next steps proposal: vagrant writes the mail summarizying this meeting. elio creates /Logo/Round1 wiki page with new drafts within the next 14 days. we have another meeting like this in 21 days. 20:11:46 It however looks very technical and futuristic and I wanted to avoid making it more rocket science 20:11:53 other proposals or which variations? 20:12:20 we could also dudle for the next meeting date or decide today in 21 days... 20:13:25 I will be in Rome at the Tor Meeting in 21 days 20:13:38 so a week later or a week earlier would be best for me 20:14:36 if you can create the drafts in a week, we could do a week earlier, else, we do it a week later.. 20:15:39 i daresay that reproducible builds is a bit ok to be seen as technical 20:15:42 actually in 2 weeks irc meeting at this time would be a bit difficult for me, so i dont mind 4 20:15:45 I can do the drafts by tomorrow probably 20:16:16 Let's do 4. As we will also have a reply from OTF probably by then 20:16:25 ok 20:16:35 vagrantc no worries, it will be noticeable it is technical 20:17:01 next steps proposal: vagrant writes the mail summarizying this meeting. elio creates /Logo/Round1 wiki page with new drafts soon. we have another meeting like this in 28 days, that is on march 21st 20:17:01 We want to balance it out to not scare people away while also making contributors proud of the project 20:17:05 I hope so at least 20:17:13 Sounds good to me 20:17:15 agreed on that proposal? 20:17:51 sounds reasonablew 20:18:14 I will post the drafts without a wordmark, okay? 20:18:15 Sounds good to me. 20:18:22 As that is a kind of additional topic to the logo 20:18:28 #agreed next steps: vagrant writes the mail summarizying this meeting. elio creates /Logo/Round1 wiki page with new drafts soon. we have another meeting like this in 28 days, that is on march 21st, 19 UTC, on #reproducible-builds 20:18:30 Let's tackle the icon mark first 20:18:42 Makes sense. 20:18:48 * h01ger nods 20:19:11 we can skip the next and final topic, we already agreed on the next irc meeting 20:19:23 we are done for now \o/ 20:19:40 * h01ger thanks everyone for attending and contributing 20:19:59 o/ very much looking forward to the new drafts! 20:20:12 Sounds great 20:20:26 I will be available in the next 15min for any other questions if you have any 20:20:27 if anyone's still around for some more minutes 20:20:34 #endmeeting