5 ms·

surely you have a better example of your gripe than closing a GH issue on the logo design... the whole conversation on your end seems petty and toxic, at first

by qppo 6y ago

surely you have a better example of your gripe than closing a GH issue on the logo design... the whole conversation on your end seems petty and toxic, at first glance.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
syrusakbary 6y ago
If you don't see any issue on a corporation having most of the control over a spec, then I guess there isn't anything I can say that will convince you. > the whole conversation on your end seems petty and toxic, at first glance That's a first! Can you expand on that? Thanks! https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3 https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3
- CJefferson 6y ago
  I'm replying here as a total independant, because you asked for a response :) Honestly, a logo for a project is both a huge thing, and a massive timesink. Your responses read that you just want to take over choosing the logo ("I'm happy to take on the responsibility of organizing it."). Then you seem to want to make this a whole issue encapsulating the problems with wasm (I am of course just reading one issue, not the many related problems)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - syrusakbary 6y ago
    Thanks for your response! Agreed that a logo is a not thing that should be taken lightly. Priorities in open-source communities are weighted differently by different members of it. We do care about accessibility, and the current logo have serious readability issues that affect disproportionally people with low-vision. IMHO a "welcoming" community should encourage improvements, rather than halting collaboration because it doesn't come from the main members.
    - CJefferson 6y ago
      I agree improvements are good in generql, but logos are (in my experience) special. They can be a massive timesink, for big projects you have to get lawyers involved, and the arguments can suck up all the energy for months. Its also not something anyone can ignore, as once a logo is chosen you are stuck with it, generally. If they are also rejecting good quality code, that's a whole other issue.
    - morty_s 6y ago
      >people with low-vision. What does this mean? How does this relate to current logo? Is this a color blindness issue?
      - syrusakbary 6y ago
        There is a color accessibility issue with the current logo. I've explained it here: https://speakerdeck.com/syrusakbary/wasi-logo-proposal https://speakerdeck.com/syrusakbary/wasi-logo-proposal
        marcinzm 6y ago
        It's a logo not a paragraph of text. The overall image is supposed to convey the brand and not just a piece of it. Even W3/WCAG agrees and logos are exempt from the contrast requirement. So your whole argument of citing WCAG is irrelevant as it explicitly doesn't apply to logos.
        syrusakbary 6y ago
        It really depends if you consider "WASI" as essential to the information conveyed in the logo. Or said in other way: if the logo intent is to be readable. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/images-of-text.html https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/images-of-text.h...
        marcinzm 6y ago
        I don't see how that link is relevant. Essential in that link simply indicates, as I read it, that the specific way the text of an image logo is rendered is essential to it's function. In other words that you can't simply replace the WASI in the image with the text "WASI." Essential does not mean that is must meet some requirements or be readable. In fact the contrast requirement your presentation cites is explicit in that it doesn't: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-cont... >Logotypes: Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no minimum contrast requirement.
- qppo 6y ago
  I didn't say anything like that, I was commenting on your commentary and not Fastly or the BA. That strawman you built up is an example of toxicity. The pettiness is that this looks like a non-issue blown into a flamewar where the BA has every right not to accept contributions from yourself because of past actions taken by the business you founded. I thought it was fine for them to close the issue was out of scope/focus, it didn't need more attention or for you to project your own gripes onto it. All told this thread left a very bad taste in my mouth with respect to Wasmer, while I have a lot of respect for the BA and Wasmtime teams and I'm very glad that they found a home at Fastly.
oefrha 6y ago
Some context from that thread I find important (I’m a bystander not involved in any way): > We would need to work with a lawyer to determine the IP issues around this. It’s possible that just using the same policy as for the WebAssembly logo works, but I know that various organizations have grown more concerned about IP in this space since then. > This is in no small part because your company, Wasmer, attempted to register “WebAssembly” and “Wasm” as trademarks. The USPTO rejected the application, but I don’t think we can assume that attempts to register a brandmark for a WASI logo would be similarly rejected. This doesn’t seem to be a he said she said situation; gp had the chance to defend himself and all he could come up was a very weak “The trademark requests were driven by our lawyers” (and what came after that was even more shameless if you ask me): https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3#issuecomment-713141554 https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3#issuecomment-71... Given that context, I’d say the gp comment (especially the “personal bias” part) is likely motivated smearing. Bottom line: don’t make up your mind just because it’s the top comment of an HN thread, or because the discrimination/racism card is played (racism card isn’t played here, it’s in the linked GH issue). If you want to form an opinion, read the other side first.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- syrusakbary 6y ago
  There is much more context to the "personal bias" statement than what is provided in the thread. But 100% agreed, it's essential to stay critical before making your mind on a given thing.
  - oefrha 6y ago
    If there’s more context you’re certainly not communicating it very well and all we see is some company attempting to trademark something they neither invented nor owned and crying discrimination with little to no supporting evidence. Also, did you delete your downvoted comment then post the same thing in a new one? I saw your comment posted a while ago, in the gray, then when I refreshed before responding, bam, “0 minutes ago”. That’s not cool.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 6y ago
I thought so too until I saw the existing logo... https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/blob/master/WASI.png https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/blob/master/WASI.png

by qppo 6y ago

surely you have a better example of your gripe than closing a GH issue on the logo design... the whole conversation on your end seems petty and toxic, at first glance.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

syrusakbary 6y ago

If you don't see any issue on a corporation having most of the control over a spec, then I guess there isn't anything I can say that will convince you. > the whole conversation on your end seems petty and toxic, at first glance That's a first! Can you expand on that? Thanks! https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3 https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3

CJefferson 6y ago
I'm replying here as a total independant, because you asked for a response :) Honestly, a logo for a project is both a huge thing, and a massive timesink. Your responses read that you just want to take over choosing the logo ("I'm happy to take on the responsibility of organizing it."). Then you seem to want to make this a whole issue encapsulating the problems with wasm (I am of course just reading one issue, not the many related problems)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- syrusakbary 6y ago
  Thanks for your response! Agreed that a logo is a not thing that should be taken lightly. Priorities in open-source communities are weighted differently by different members of it. We do care about accessibility, and the current logo have serious readability issues that affect disproportionally people with low-vision. IMHO a "welcoming" community should encourage improvements, rather than halting collaboration because it doesn't come from the main members.
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    I agree improvements are good in generql, but logos are (in my experience) special. They can be a massive timesink, for big projects you have to get lawyers involved, and the arguments can suck up all the energy for months. Its also not something anyone can ignore, as once a logo is chosen you are stuck with it, generally. If they are also rejecting good quality code, that's a whole other issue.
  - morty_s 6y ago
    >people with low-vision. What does this mean? How does this relate to current logo? Is this a color blindness issue?
    - syrusakbary 6y ago
      There is a color accessibility issue with the current logo. I've explained it here: https://speakerdeck.com/syrusakbary/wasi-logo-proposal https://speakerdeck.com/syrusakbary/wasi-logo-proposal
      - marcinzm 6y ago
        It's a logo not a paragraph of text. The overall image is supposed to convey the brand and not just a piece of it. Even W3/WCAG agrees and logos are exempt from the contrast requirement. So your whole argument of citing WCAG is irrelevant as it explicitly doesn't apply to logos.
        syrusakbary 6y ago
        It really depends if you consider "WASI" as essential to the information conveyed in the logo. Or said in other way: if the logo intent is to be readable. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/images-of-text.html https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/images-of-text.h...
        marcinzm 6y ago
        I don't see how that link is relevant. Essential in that link simply indicates, as I read it, that the specific way the text of an image logo is rendered is essential to it's function. In other words that you can't simply replace the WASI in the image with the text "WASI." Essential does not mean that is must meet some requirements or be readable. In fact the contrast requirement your presentation cites is explicit in that it doesn't: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-cont... >Logotypes: Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no minimum contrast requirement.
qppo 6y ago
I didn't say anything like that, I was commenting on your commentary and not Fastly or the BA. That strawman you built up is an example of toxicity. The pettiness is that this looks like a non-issue blown into a flamewar where the BA has every right not to accept contributions from yourself because of past actions taken by the business you founded. I thought it was fine for them to close the issue was out of scope/focus, it didn't need more attention or for you to project your own gripes onto it. All told this thread left a very bad taste in my mouth with respect to Wasmer, while I have a lot of respect for the BA and Wasmtime teams and I'm very glad that they found a home at Fastly.

oefrha 6y ago

Some context from that thread I find important (I’m a bystander not involved in any way): > We would need to work with a lawyer to determine the IP issues around this. It’s possible that just using the same policy as for the WebAssembly logo works, but I know that various organizations have grown more concerned about IP in this space since then. > This is in no small part because your company, Wasmer, attempted to register “WebAssembly” and “Wasm” as trademarks. The USPTO rejected the application, but I don’t think we can assume that attempts to register a brandmark for a WASI logo would be similarly rejected. This doesn’t seem to be a he said she said situation; gp had the chance to defend himself and all he could come up was a very weak “The trademark requests were driven by our lawyers” (and what came after that was even more shameless if you ask me): https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3#issuecomment-713141554 https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3#issuecomment-71... Given that context, I’d say the gp comment (especially the “personal bias” part) is likely motivated smearing. Bottom line: don’t make up your mind just because it’s the top comment of an HN thread, or because the discrimination/racism card is played (racism card isn’t played here, it’s in the linked GH issue). If you want to form an opinion, read the other side first.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
syrusakbary 6y ago
There is much more context to the "personal bias" statement than what is provided in the thread. But 100% agreed, it's essential to stay critical before making your mind on a given thing.
- oefrha 6y ago
  If there’s more context you’re certainly not communicating it very well and all we see is some company attempting to trademark something they neither invented nor owned and crying discrimination with little to no supporting evidence. Also, did you delete your downvoted comment then post the same thing in a new one? I saw your comment posted a while ago, in the gray, then when I refreshed before responding, bam, “0 minutes ago”. That’s not cool.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 6y ago

I thought so too until I saw the existing logo... https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/blob/master/WASI.png https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/blob/master/WASI.png