Re: Cultural Issue with the Foot Logo

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

Thilo Pfennig wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Dave wrote:
> 
>> Which countries?
>>
>>   
>  Besides Thailand and Nepal due to the material online I would add:
> Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi
> Arabia, Quatar, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United, Arab Emirates and also
> Pakistan, Afghanistan and other muslim countries maybe those with +50%
> muslim population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muslim_world_map.png

Really?  Definitely not in Iran.  And not in Turkey as far as the GUADEC
experience could tell.  How did you decide it's offensive in Islamic countries?

behdad

>> When abandoning a logo, you are in essence saying that it has no value to you.
> 
> In my view its rather the question of why a worldwide project that
> committed itself to internationalization would want to offend parts of
> the world. To do this without knowing to do so is acceptable and
> understandable - but if iobe becomes aware of a problem the question is
> why one wants to keep offending people. What was formerly unconciously
> is than conciously.
> 
> I think my view is very different from yours. You are trying to defend a
> logo, which has served GNOME for many years. I rather look at what
> offends people and therefore holds back GNOME in many countries and
> would suggest to change what offends. Both views are possible, but a
> compromise is needed. The real question is how much harm the current
> GNOME logo does in relation to the benefit for keeping it.
> 
> My view is that if the GNOME logo will keep some countries from even
> looking at GNOME as a viable desktop alternative than it does great harm
> to the whole project if the goal is to be acceptable in every country.
> There are things that GNOME will never fix, such as becoming closed
> source for people who are offended by open source - but there are things
> that are not essential to the core GNOME like a logo, documentation,...
> which can be changed if it seems wise to do so. I would recommend to
> think over the conception of "why should it be a problem if I dont have
> a problem with it?" Thats the wrong approach - the better question is
> "Why should one offend people if this is not what the project is about?"
> If one decides to do it conciously then one has to bear the consequences.
> 
> A compromise could be that the Foundation  does a real evaluation about
> the extend of the problem. I think by just asking of the list one might
> not get good answers because those who are offended by GNOME would not
> subscribe here ;-).
> 
> Its not always about better software, or better documentation, sometimes
> its about how to interact and communicate that makes the difference.
> 
> Regards,
> Thilo
>