+1

+1.

Since this is a trademark change, let's go for a full vote with a deadline of a week from today. (Need three +1s, no unresolved -1s.)

+1

+1

I am not aware of the "upcoming new contributor packet for active contributors" Where is this being discussed?

@bex @mattdm mentioned that during the call, towards the end when we discussed next steps. thats all i know about it

@bex I didn't mean new contributors, I meant active ones. I may have mispoken on the call.

+1 & @duffy my wife wants you to know she immediately got the tilt to the "e" :)

ohhh sorry it's ambiguous i wrote a new contributor packet w the new applying to the packet not the contribs

+1

@pbrobinson The asymmetry issue is noted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuMUwENsHK0&t=180 (basically: 6 out of 7 are covered).

+1 to the new design

Okay — I count 7 +1s and no -1s. Peter and Dennis, your concerns about it not solving all of the problems are noted. I think it's definitely a step forward and fits well within the "evolutionary not total rethink" approach I asked for.

what is the state of this? would love to see the new logo materialize in fedora!

@lorbus we're on hold until the next budget cycle.

-1

This logo doesn't look good. Not even remotely as the old one. I hope this won't be finalized. There were better designs than this too, but this is quite bad. Like the f has got a bear belly or pregnant.

I prefer the old one.

@irofedora are you on the council? this was a council vote. it is over 4 months ago now and approved as can be seen plainly in the issue history. It is a shame the decision disappoints you, but major changes like this are always difficult at first and with a bit of time and context make more sense.

Hi Council -

I just wanted to post the updates and tweaks that have been made to the logo since it was last approved and request another up / down vote on this final version. This time I have the new design shown across a full suite of Fedora branding assets. If there are additional assets you'd like to see 'converted,' I'm happy to do that.

Here is a changelog of the tweaks that have been made:

• The 'e' is a little bit friendlier (instead of using upstream 'e', it has been modified to be a little more open / less shifty-looking.)
• The gap in the 'e' has been closed based on feedback
• The angle of the e's tilt has been modified to be simpatico with the 'a' (see next point)
• • The 'a' has been completely reworked from scratch based on several rounds of feedback, and now has a tilted bowl at the same angle as the 'e' which seems to have resolved a lot of concerns expressed about the tilted 'e'
• The infinity mark's f has been modified: the curves of the 'f' are now more even; previously the bottom bowl of the 'f' was larger than the top cross section.
• The infinity mark is slightly thicker than before to better match the thickness of the wordmark.
• The logomark has been nudged closer to the wordmark.
• Generally, a lot of more precise kerning & alignment has been done across the mark and letters.

@duffy Why does the magazine have that shade? I feel it inconsistent and out of place.
Also maybe the blue is a bit light.
Otherwise a wonderful job, it gives a new fresh look to the project!
Can't wait to see them live! 😃

Amazing job @duffy , The new logos look great !!

The logo by itself looks good. I have some observations about the examples:

Whats the "gradient mask" version? Here it just looks like a darker blue than the vertical logo.

In this overview, the magazine and community blog logos stand out because "MAGAZINE" seems to use a different font for the sub-project than the other logos (TEAMNAME, APPLICATION)
And in the community blog logo, the "fedora" color does not match the logo color as it does in the other examples but it seems that "COMMUNTY BLOG" matches the color instead.
Also the gradient for the magazine logo looks strange to me as @kowalski7cc wrote.

Why do teams not use the word mark but only the logo?

The "Fedora loves python" sticker seems to contain a "tm" sign for the Fedora logo but the other examples do not.

The missing logo for the remix seemed to me that it indicates that it is not official but then I noticed that the official editions do not use the image logo as well.

Thank you.

1st, the logo looks amazing.

Comments:

• The inclusion of the "tm" sign needs to be added to the magazine, as previously stated by @till.
• That inclusion needs to be universal, even the current logo in getfedora.org have the "tm" sign.
• The magazine logo is being changed as well, and it's the only one, "python love fedora", "silverblue", "CoreOS", "Workstation", "Server" and "IoT" are keeping the current logo. Is this by mistake or intentional? If intentional, the magazine team was consulted about it?
• The gradient option is too conservative, almost imperceptible, I have to double check that it wasn't the angle of my monitor causing the change.

Thank you for this amazing work.

I think replacing the existing logo is not the best approach because the existing logo is a good one. It can be slightly modified to make it monochrome friendly and I can give a suggestion as to how if desired. I just think it would be more valuable to the Fedora brand to slightly adjust the existing one than change it this way with the suggested pivot.

@michaeltunnell before leaving feedback on the design, I would like to kindly request you read through the two blog posts listed under "resources" at the top of the ticket. It has important background and context that I think directly address some of the suggestions you're making. (spoiler alert: there is geometrically no way to slightly modify the existing logo to make it monochrome friendly - many, many hours and considerations towards that has been applied by multiple pros.)

I realize there has been a lot of work that has been put into this, what I mean that a monochrome-able version doesn't have to require a change to the main version. The existing logo could have a monochrome style variation. For example, based on the discussion on the FontAwesome GitHub issue, I think a good approach would be this one attached, based on the ideas from sensibleworld.

@michaeltunnell I must entreat you to please read the posts I pointed out to you, because it is quite clear you have not.

@michaeltunnell I must entreat you to please read the posts I pointed out to you, because it is quite clear you have not.

@duffy I think it's fair to consider that @michaeltunnell has read the blog posts, but he probably prioritizes the importance of those problems differently.

He's done a fair amount of design work in his own right for the media network focused on Linux he runs and does have to deal with those problems. I would suggest potentially considering talking to him offline to convey this better.

Also I want to say that is a ticket for a council vote and not a general public forum on the design. We're not really open to public comment on that right now - this issue is going thru legal and trademark sign offs so changes to the design at this time are not something additional input on would be helpful or actionable at this time. Thanks.

@ngompa i directly addressed why the design he cited is a problem in one of those posts.

Also please can we stop. I have no admin privs, and I see this getting out of hand via pile ons etc.

Just wondering, since we also have #249 to track the Logo update timeline and Red Hat Legal process mentioned above… do we still need this ticket? The Council is not going to make a vote on this any time in the near future.

I think the ticket as it is right now is confusing and implies immediate action is needed, when that is actually not true. I propose closing this issue as deferred and doubling down on #249 for logo/brand discussions.

Closing as resolved. The Council has approved the logo as proposed, and we can open a new ticket when the final legal edits are done.