On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Russell Harrison <rtlm10@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I do agree they make for better pictures for a coffee table book. I > was kind of thinking that only a select number of things would be > allowed. Say only the components from the logo for example. Anyway >lets put that to the side and concentrate on raw pictures. We can > always dust it off if there aren't enough submissions coming in. Nope fully disagree. I think we should be a specific as possible... and ask people to use a specific object or shape. I think the more abstract the pictures are..the less cohesive the concept. The point is not to collect random candids of people, just because they are people, even if they are our people. The point isn't to encourage people to be wacky and expressive in how they take their pictures. People could already be taking pictures like that and sharing them. I don't see the value in archiving all possible pictures from a project marketing standpoint. The point of this specific proposal it to draw attention to the symbolic relationships between people and our ideals. One object..repeated over and over and over again. Not 3 objects or 5 objects..or random objects. We stress the shared commitment through repetition of the single object as a single repeated symbol. >It doesn't matter what the parameters are things are going to have to >be thrown out. To have a quality final product we actually want to >have to throw out the vast majority of submissions. Maybe something >like a gallery site (already in the repos) would allow folks to vote >on pictures so the choice wouldn't be a massive effort for one person >or a few people. Again I disagree. The more constrained the parameters the more quality we get coming in the door and the less work for everyone who wants to make use of these images as tools for specific marketing goals. Again these pictures are not meant to be be expressive...they are meant as tools to meet a specific goal...and as such it is only fair to state upfront to the people creating the tools what the constraints are. We have package submission criteria for a reason. Those quality assurance reasons are just as valid for content submissions. Having a big pile of candids that are all over the place in terms of composition and style that we can't easily sort is just a big garbage pile.... not unlike the a big pile of random desktop wallpapers that some sites collect for users to make use of. I think its important that we give our contributors the responsibility to submit appropriate material. And we do that by be explicit about what we are looking for. Don't open up a submission call to on all possible potential uses for images. Be narrow and stay focused...and ask the same of the submitters. If in the future we come up with another reason to collect images, then we do it again with different criteria and constraints. If we develop a gallery process which expects people to drop in low quality material.. is that really an appropriate methodology to encourage the type of contribution we want to see project wide? I don't think so. If we do it, we do it in a constrained and tight way that encourages and expects people to submit material which is unlikely to be thrown out based on quality. I'd much rather hold a repository of quality images that meet well defined submission criteria then to have a big pile of images that we feel compelled to keep simply because they were submitted and we'd feel bad throwing away a good faith submission. -jef I think your are also thinking that we only have to have one set of physically published images. That may not actually make sense, since we are as global as we all. We might not be able to do a single official publication to meet the underlying goal. We may very well use an on-demand process, such that different project subgroups could have their own mix of images in the publishable material they use, beyond just a single coffee table book. If we in the US found a way to get candids of public officials holding the symbol of our ideals, that'd be great for a US book...but not so useful for say Brazil... and vice-versa. > I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression that objects in > public spaces were fair game. Public property or government property is one thing, private property is another. For example a private university campus like say Princeton has a number of statues and pretty buildings. And while you are welcome to walk around and enjoy the scenery, even take pictures for personal use, you may not have the right to use images of them commercially without express permission of the University. -jef -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
