Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi David,

I'd like to add a +1 to Graham's points in relation to past
experiences. I'm not against inviting others to participate, but I am
concerned about the mandate(s) that such invitations might imply for
reasons I'll outline below.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:07 PM, David Nelson <> wrote:
Hi Graham, :-)

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 15:12, Graham Lauder <> wrote:
I would oppose this in the strongest possible terms, when that has been done
in the past, the artist, disappears after taking the glory and they are never
seen again.  The art project became almost irrelevant because contributions
were confined to birthday cakes and the occasional brochure and all of the
high profile work went to the corporate staff or contractors hired by
corporate partners.  if they feel strong enough about contributing they will
join the community and contribute like the rest of us without the so called
"generosity" of doing it "pro bono".

We have the chance to build up the art project again by giving people
meaningful projects, don't let's screw that up by bringing in "fly by
nighters".  Longstanding contribution to the project should be prerequisite.

If I got a green light from you guys to go talent-scouting for graphic
artists, I'd certainly prefer to bring home long-term recruits rather
than occasional contributors. That being said, some of the
highly-talented graphic artists out there might not have the time or
inclination to get involved on a permanent basis.

Yet, IMHO, it would be sad to refuse freely-contributed work of major
value to this community-owned project simply because the person or
people are not long-standing "club members"...

No one is saying that to contribute to the project, one has to be a
long standing 'club member'. Or even that they have to stay for X
weeks/months after their contribution. But repeated one-time
contributions are unsustainable and damaging, and that was kind of the
norm in OOo's Art project. Contributions that introduce large
inconsistencies in branding are particularly problematic and

LibreOffice needs a broad (big picture) strategy to ensure consistency
and recognition across various instances of its branding (icons,
splash screen, etc.). We can't do that unless there is a certain
amount of continuity in the contributions and contributors. The
branding is going to develop over a longer period of time, and
LibreOffice is going to need people who keep that broad strategy in
mind so that, through the end-products of contributors, users
experience a congruent design strategy as they use the LibreOffice
application(s). OOo has had numerous problems with inconsistent
branding in the past and LibreOffice can avoid those mistakes from the
beginning. I hope we can have a collaborative, co-operative and
iterative design process when it comes to defining LibreOffice's
branding. IMO, anyone coming in to contribute artwork needs to keep
that in mind.


E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.