openSUSE Release Engineering meeting 03.01.2024
All meeting minutes can be found here: https://etherpad.opensuse.org/p/ReleaseEngineering-meeting The meeting is hosted here https://meet.opensuse.org/ReleaseEngineeringMeeting Happy New Year 2024!!! ## Attendees bittin, lkocman, DimStar, Sarah, Max ## Leap https://calendar.opensuse.org/ is live, we should add Releng and weekly call in there. Members of this call are welcome to join https://calendar.opensuse.org/teams/release https://calendar.opensuse.org/teams/release. https://github.com/openSUSE/calendar-o-o Beta at the end of February (Based on SLES 15 SP6 Public Beta). All package drops and SLES update requests should be finalized by then https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Roadmap. Leap already has a wallpaper including the newly elected logo, perhaps we could scan for some other occurrences of the old logo. I see one in "About system" in gnome-settings. I suspect that KDE will have a similar placement. gnuhealth will require 3.11 versions of python-tinydb and python-Kivy + opencv SCC enablement to unblock SLES migration testing https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217966 Discussion about openSUSE Dolomite / Marble on extended SLE Micro call tomorrow I'm really happy that the situation (was https://etherpad.opensuse.org/p/ReleaseEngineering-20231122-pm-discussion) is now clarified. The new plan is to start working on an openSUSE Leap Micro 6.X setup since the beginning of 2024. From Daniel and Sergio (PM): As for Dolomite, the idea is for it to be implemented as an extension for SLE Micro and we would like to also copy that extension over to openSUSE once the details are clearer to us, so basically a Dolomite extension to openSUSE Leap Micro. ## openSUSE Tumbleweed (ana) openSUSE:Factory build fail stats: 78 failed 15 unresolvable (last week 57 failed, 4 unresolvable) https://tinyurl.com/ysy4nnnz Most relevant updates from this last week: * x-mas / new-year break Updates waiting / work in progress in staging: (almost same than past week) * libxml 2.12.1 (lots of work to do), on hold until January 8th * dbus-broker as default dbus session manager, waiting for maintainers to reach agreement * RPM 4.19 (work advanced, %patch with unnumbered patches is not supported from this version on) * Update to openssl 3.2.0 * ruby 3.3 * Mesa 23.3, on hold until January 8th * Delete vagrant & Virtualization:vagrant due to licensing changes by Hashicorp https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/factory@lists.opensuse.org/thread/3... ## Richard (Aeon) Work on "aeon-installer" has been supplanted by work on "tik" - Transactional Installation Kit Basic premise has evolved to no longer being graphical, but a tui installer, akin to the kiwi SelfInstaller but with a number of new features Most of these features evolve from a core assumption - all of our installation media todate assumes a read-only ISO, back from the days of installing via CDrom tik installation media assumes a SUSE-style "transactional" hybrid read-only and read-write filesystem, and assumes will only be run from a USB stick. This will allow people to customise the installer, and use the USB stick to deliver things like ignition/combustion scripts, while still actually deploying properly crafted images Core features - Partition for storing ignition/combustion scripts on the same USB stick as being used for installation - tik OS on the USB can be modified with additional drivers/packages from transactional-update - Core installation workflow is very simple - Select Disk, Select Image, Deploy Image to Disk, Done. - Customisable installation workflow by distros by adding pre/post shell script modules in /usr/lib/tik/modules - Customisable installation workflow by users by adding pre/post shell script modules in /etc/tik/modules - Support for both 'single distro' installations, or multiple images if stored in /var/lib/tik Current status Under heavy development, got working module loading and working storage function for selecting storage devices, now working on selecting images ## Bernhard (Slowroll) Last week was silent. Had version bump around Christmas. We're pretty close to TW right now. Moved to a new repository. We don't have signing keys for kernel atm. DimStar: We need Adrian for this ^. DimStar/Adrian: we have to think this through a bit. Continues to roll Slowly, sometimes has dependency problems -> need install-check Bernhard: three open issues in OBS bugtracker osc rdiff + osc getbinaries + building DVD with product-builder does not work with TWsnapshot+dod approach = https://github.com/openSUSE/slowroll/issues/1 https://github.com/openSUSE/open-build-service/issues/14994 osc branch -r release counter reset https://github.com/openSUSE/open-build-service/issues/15079 causes spurious "downgrades" missing build-compare causes extra publishes https://github.com/openSUSE/open-build-service/issues/15108 ## Max Leap 15.6 - build stats in Backports: 34(was 26) faild, 13 unresolvable(was 13) * Not much news, snapshot repo just got refreshed - massive package rebuilding now * Preparing a duplicate SLE/Backports package list, they're candidate to be deleted ## Guillaume - Arm Not available * Tumbleweed: - Rolling - WIP: Still some packages built without PAC/BTI, two main reasons: * assembler files without PAC/BTI (usually reported upstream, e.g. openssl, gnutls, etc) * Packages built without distro flags (usually fixed in spec file) - rpmlint: * openSUSE:Factory:ARM now part of https://rpmlint.opensuse.org/ * we noticed that rpmlint does not check anymore for packages built without distro %{optflags}. We should add it back. https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1217840 - WIP to get Tumbleweed to run on Lenovo X13s: * Latest status available at https://en.opensuse.org/HCL:ThinkpadX13s * Leap 15.6/Backports SP6: - No update ## Sarah - s390x Tumbleweed: * Christmas release did not go to openQA -> Any openQA changes again? DimStar: last build from 28th failed for s390x in openQA. good news: * Emulator unicorn updated: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:AdaLovelace:branches:Virtualiza... -> does not build for SLES/openSUSE Leap on s390x/aarch64 Upstream issue: https://github.com/unicorn-engine/unicorn/issues/1840 * 2nd mainframe connected to the energy ## Doug Not available * Logo contest complete * 10,813 votes * Results posted at https://en.opensuse.org/Logocontest * Winners of contest contacted for gift - lkocman: we will eventually have to refresh wallpapers with new logo too. I can cover the Leap one. existing Tumbleweed would be more tricky. * Community meeting * Meeting provides a pathway forward with a two-step process for logo contest * ddemaio will send out email shortly * TSP * One payment pending * One new request * CLT Sponsorship PO recieved Static * oSC24 dates June 27 to 29 reserved (Thursday - Saturday) * FOSDEM Bus Connect ddemaio@opensuse.org if you're in the Nuremberg area * AI topics (static) * Sponsorship of Installfest.cz requested, seems like it was tentatively approved. ## Dirk Not available Further work on python 3.12 enablement preps for Factory, submitted about ~ 35 updates Working on python 3.6 removal in SP6 Package Hub ## Wolfgang (Package Hub), Scott Bahling Not available task for lkocman: The problem statement (SLES/SLED expectations) Draft to be composed here: https://etherpad.opensuse.org/p/packagehub-problem-statement ## Maintenance team (Marcus or Maurizio (m4u)) Not available HEADS UP! Leap 15.4 EOL on Dec 31st 2023 Updated lkocman: will look into openSUSE-welcome to announce when a release is almost/is EOL lkocman: no update, I've looked into the package (I was surprised to see that it's in c++), but no progress so far. It would be nice to have this done this week, prior xmas break and have update released. Confirmed that maintenance setup for Leap 15.6 will be with Public Beta (~February 2024) Max: php81, SLES 15 SP6 seem to have already php82. Marcus: Let's not add php81 into 15.6 since php82 is out. No issues. Internal request to add php8.1 to Package HUB. Regarding AMD issue, kernel update is scheduled for a second Tuesday of the month. https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215802 Start working on the maintenance setup with Beta 15.6 (End of February 2024) ## Adrian - OBS Not available ## Simon (Leap Replacement/Linarite) Not available ## Open Floor
Hallo zusammen, Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 16:55:08 CET schrieb Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory:
Leap already has a wallpaper including the newly elected logo, perhaps we could scan for some other occurrences of the old logo. I see one in "About system" in gnome-settings. I suspect that KDE will have a similar placement.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea. The logo survey had some serious flaws, most important: it did not include our current logo, despite being submitted by someone. (And I'll not even start with the detail that it wasn't automatically included. Even I am not evil enough to come up with such an idea.) The main reason why the logo discussion is currently quiet is that we got a promise that there will be a membership vote where we can choose between the current and the possible new logo. However, that also means that geeko, our current logo is still our logo. I have serious doubts that the majority of our members want a new logo, therefore it might be a good idea not to replace our current logo until we had the membership vote about it. (Unless someone is keen to possibly revert several *-branding packages.) Regards, Christian Boltz PS: non-random signature -- <lcp> maybe openSUSE should go oldschool and be o.p.e.n.S.U.S.E * cboltz will send the hungry "goodbye dots" geeko to avoid that * lcp might create a geeko without a mouth just to avoid that [from #opensuse-admin]
* Christian Boltz <opensuse@cboltz.de> [01-03-24 12:41]:
Hallo zusammen,
Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 16:55:08 CET schrieb Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory:
Leap already has a wallpaper including the newly elected logo, perhaps we could scan for some other occurrences of the old logo. I see one in "About system" in gnome-settings. I suspect that KDE will have a similar placement.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
The logo survey had some serious flaws, most important: it did not include our current logo, despite being submitted by someone. (And I'll not even start with the detail that it wasn't automatically included. Even I am not evil enough to come up with such an idea.)
The main reason why the logo discussion is currently quiet is that we got a promise that there will be a membership vote where we can choose between the current and the possible new logo.
However, that also means that geeko, our current logo is still our logo. I have serious doubts that the majority of our members want a new logo, therefore it might be a good idea not to replace our current logo until we had the membership vote about it. (Unless someone is keen to possibly revert several *-branding packages.)
Regards,
Christian Boltz
PS: non-random signature -- <lcp> maybe openSUSE should go oldschool and be o.p.e.n.S.U.S.E * cboltz will send the hungry "goodbye dots" geeko to avoid that * lcp might create a geeko without a mouth just to avoid that [from #opensuse-admin]
agreed. Changing logos is about changing IDENTITY. why would we want to do that. is our history not something to be proud of? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 20:23:25 CET schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Christian Boltz <opensuse@cboltz.de> [01-03-24 12:41]:
Hallo zusammen,
Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 16:55:08 CET schrieb Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory:
Leap already has a wallpaper including the newly elected logo, perhaps we could scan for some other occurrences of the old logo. I see one in "About system" in gnome-settings. I suspect that KDE will have a similar placement.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
The logo survey had some serious flaws, most important: it did not include our current logo, despite being submitted by someone. (And I'll not even start with the detail that it wasn't automatically included. Even I am not evil enough to come up with such an idea.)
The main reason why the logo discussion is currently quiet is that we got a promise that there will be a membership vote where we can choose between the current and the possible new logo.
However, that also means that geeko, our current logo is still our logo. I have serious doubts that the majority of our members want a new logo, therefore it might be a good idea not to replace our current logo until we had the membership vote about it. (Unless someone is keen to possibly revert several *-branding packages.)
agreed. Changing logos is about changing IDENTITY. why would we want to do that. is our history not something to be proud of?
+1 You dont change an identity or brand just for the fun of it. Only if there is a certain reason, e.g. because it is burned or the scope of your business changes I see neither of these reasons for openSUSE My 2c Axel
Hey fellow chameleons, wont the chameleon stay as opensuse mascot? Just the logos for the distros are about to be steamlined. And so far I know the Tumbleweed and Leap logos are recognizable but I dont identify with them - I do with the chameleon. my 2 euro cents, Bernd Am 04.01.24 um 14:30 schrieb Axel Braun:
Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 20:23:25 CET schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Christian Boltz <opensuse@cboltz.de> [01-03-24 12:41]:
Hallo zusammen,
Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 16:55:08 CET schrieb Lubos Kocman via
openSUSE Factory:
Leap already has a wallpaper including the newly elected logo, perhaps
we could scan for some other occurrences of the old logo. I see one
in "About system" in gnome-settings. I suspect that KDE will have a
similar placement.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
The logo survey had some serious flaws, most important: it did not
include our current logo, despite being submitted by someone. (And I'll
not even start with the detail that it wasn't automatically included.
Even I am not evil enough to come up with such an idea.)
The main reason why the logo discussion is currently quiet is that we
got a promise that there will be a membership vote where we can choose
between the current and the possible new logo.
However, that also means that geeko, our current logo is still our logo.
I have serious doubts that the majority of our members want a new logo,
therefore it might be a good idea not to replace our current logo until
we had the membership vote about it. (Unless someone is keen to possibly
revert several *-branding packages.)
agreed. Changing logos is about changing IDENTITY. why would we want to
do that. is our history not something to be proud of?
+1
You dont change an identity or brand just for the fun of it. Only if there is a certain reason, e.g. because it is burned or the scope of your business changes
I see neither of these reasons for openSUSE
My 2c
Axel
I get your concerns, but If you check the wallpaper in 15.6 and 15.5 it's already using the "modernized Leap logo" which "luckily" also won in the survey. So far nobody complained about wallpaper and I feel that the wallpaper was accepted very well. So it's really about finishing what's already halfway done. I'm not touching any other graphics. https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/blob/leap-15.5/raw-theme-drop/desktop-1... https://github.com/openSUSE/distribution-logos/tree/main/Leap (so all I need to do is just to submit it here). On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:33 PM Bernd Ritter <comrad@posteo.de> wrote:
Hey fellow chameleons,
wont the chameleon stay as opensuse mascot? Just the logos for the distros are about to be steamlined. And so far I know the Tumbleweed and Leap logos are recognizable but I dont identify with them - I do with the chameleon.
my 2 euro cents, Bernd
Am 04.01.24 um 14:30 schrieb Axel Braun:
Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 20:23:25 CET schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Christian Boltz <opensuse@cboltz.de> [01-03-24 12:41]:
Hallo zusammen,
Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2024, 16:55:08 CET schrieb Lubos Kocman via
openSUSE Factory:
Leap already has a wallpaper including the newly elected logo, perhaps
we could scan for some other occurrences of the old logo. I see one
in "About system" in gnome-settings. I suspect that KDE will have a
similar placement.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
The logo survey had some serious flaws, most important: it did not
include our current logo, despite being submitted by someone. (And I'll
not even start with the detail that it wasn't automatically included.
Even I am not evil enough to come up with such an idea.)
The main reason why the logo discussion is currently quiet is that we
got a promise that there will be a membership vote where we can choose
between the current and the possible new logo.
However, that also means that geeko, our current logo is still our logo.
I have serious doubts that the majority of our members want a new logo,
therefore it might be a good idea not to replace our current logo until
we had the membership vote about it. (Unless someone is keen to possibly
revert several *-branding packages.)
agreed. Changing logos is about changing IDENTITY. why would we want to
do that. is our history not something to be proud of?
+1
You dont change an identity or brand just for the fun of it. Only if there is a certain reason, e.g. because it is burned or the scope of your business changes
I see neither of these reasons for openSUSE
My 2c
Axel
-- Best regards Luboš Kocman openSUSE Leap Release Manager
On 2024-01-04 20:34, Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I get your concerns, but If you check the wallpaper in 15.6 and 15.5 it's already using the "modernized Leap logo" which "luckily" also won in the survey. So far nobody complained about wallpaper and I feel that the wallpaper was accepted very well. So it's really about finishing what's already halfway done. I'm not touching any other graphics.
https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/blob/leap-15.5/raw-theme-drop/desktop-1... https://github.com/openSUSE/distribution-logos/tree/main/Leap (so all I need to do is just to submit it here).
I interpret your above reply as "I get your concerns but we're going to move ahead anyway" This approach, which is has been demonstrated repeatedly in this process, is precisely the source of all of my dislike of any such change. I wholeheartedly agree with Christian Boltz Changing something as important as our projects identity should not be forced upon the Project and we have a Membership and Membership votes precisely for ensuring such major changes to the Project proceed with consent of the people who make up the heart of this Project. -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich
Hi, the distro logos are not an identity. They identify a branch of development. These change over time, as branches also changes, as we just see with the development of MicroOS as a "new" member and/or the upcoming of SlowRoll. As stated before, I identify with the chameleon as logo for the whole project. And this is not subject to change, as far as I have understood this. Also the logos are supposed to be more homogeneous - which a good move especially in hindsight of the big ALP as a common base change. Communication on before was leading into a different direction and it sounded if the whole project's identity is about to change - but that's also partly because of the drama seeking social media. Cheers, Bernd Am 05.01.24 um 10:12 schrieb Richard Brown:
On 2024-01-04 20:34, Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I get your concerns, but If you check the wallpaper in 15.6 and 15.5 it's already using the "modernized Leap logo" which "luckily" also won in the survey. So far nobody complained about wallpaper and I feel that the wallpaper was accepted very well. So it's really about finishing what's already halfway done. I'm not touching any other graphics.
https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/blob/leap-15.5/raw-theme-drop/desktop-1...
https://github.com/openSUSE/distribution-logos/tree/main/Leap (so all I need to do is just to submit it here).
I interpret your above reply as "I get your concerns but we're going to move ahead anyway"
This approach, which is has been demonstrated repeatedly in this process, is precisely the source of all of my dislike of any such change.
I wholeheartedly agree with Christian Boltz
Changing something as important as our projects identity should not be forced upon the Project and we have a Membership and Membership votes precisely for ensuring such major changes to the Project proceed with consent of the people who make up the heart of this Project.
On 1/5/24 19:42, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-01-04 20:34, Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I get your concerns, but If you check the wallpaper in 15.6 and 15.5 it's already using the "modernized Leap logo" which "luckily" also won in the survey. So far nobody complained about wallpaper and I feel that the wallpaper was accepted very well. So it's really about finishing what's already halfway done. I'm not touching any other graphics.
https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/blob/leap-15.5/raw-theme-drop/desktop-1... https://github.com/openSUSE/distribution-logos/tree/main/Leap (so all I need to do is just to submit it here).
I interpret your above reply as "I get your concerns but we're going to move ahead anyway"
This approach, which is has been demonstrated repeatedly in this process, is precisely the source of all of my dislike of any such change.
I wholeheartedly agree with Christian Boltz
Changing something as important as our projects identity should not be forced upon the Project and we have a Membership and Membership votes precisely for ensuring such major changes to the Project proceed with consent of the people who make up the heart of this Project.
When we last discussed changing the logo several years back (We were considering it along with the name), The Board at the time decided it would be best to do such a change only with a vote by members as its really something that affects all parts of the project. I tend to agree with Christian and Richard here and if I am elected to the board for this year having a membership vote for such a change is something i'll bring to the board pretty quickly. I'll disagree with Axel and say that there could be valid reasons why we as a project would want a different logo and I believe that someone could create a compelling case as to why we as a project should change logo and present that to members. But in my opinion that's the way to make such a major change. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Hello argument taken Simon, however, the situation right now is that we have a default wallpaper for about a year now (since Beta of 15.5 I believe) that already has this new logo and we have about showing the modernized logo. That wallpaper received warm feedback, approval from the SUSE Branding team etc. Specifically the Leap logo modernization was happening in PRs in github.com/openSUSE/artwork and branding way before any poll was considered. https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/pull/138 I'm not sure if people actually looked at the wallpaper and realized it. So do we keep mixed logos across distro, is that what I'm reading? I find this situation pretty awkward as arguments are turning me away from fixing the inconsistency. I feel people are raising arguments from the openSUSE project logo change, also for "distribution logo tuneup". I used tuneup on purpose in the case of Leap, as it's effectively slimmed-down variant of the very same logo. I'm aware that other distributions might be in a different situation. Cheers Lubos On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 12:14 PM Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> wrote:
On 1/5/24 19:42, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-01-04 20:34, Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I get your concerns, but If you check the wallpaper in 15.6 and 15.5 it's already using the "modernized Leap logo" which "luckily" also won in the survey. So far nobody complained about wallpaper and I feel that the wallpaper was accepted very well. So it's really about finishing what's already halfway done. I'm not touching any other graphics.
https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/blob/leap-15.5/raw-theme-drop/desktop-1... https://github.com/openSUSE/distribution-logos/tree/main/Leap (so all I need to do is just to submit it here).
I interpret your above reply as "I get your concerns but we're going to move ahead anyway"
This approach, which is has been demonstrated repeatedly in this process, is precisely the source of all of my dislike of any such change.
I wholeheartedly agree with Christian Boltz
Changing something as important as our projects identity should not be forced upon the Project and we have a Membership and Membership votes precisely for ensuring such major changes to the Project proceed with consent of the people who make up the heart of this Project.
When we last discussed changing the logo several years back (We were considering it along with the name), The Board at the time decided it would be best to do such a change only with a vote by members as its really something that affects all parts of the project.
I tend to agree with Christian and Richard here and if I am elected to the board for this year having a membership vote for such a change is something i'll bring to the board pretty quickly.
I'll disagree with Axel and say that there could be valid reasons why we as a project would want a different logo and I believe that someone could create a compelling case as to why we as a project should change logo and present that to members. But in my opinion that's the way to make such a major change.
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
-- Best regards Luboš Kocman openSUSE Leap Release Manager
On Friday 2024-01-05 12:57, Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory wrote:
argument taken Simon, however, the situation right now is that we have a default wallpaper for about a year now (since Beta of 15.5 I believe) that already has this new logo and we have about showing the modernized logo. That wallpaper received warm feedback, approval from the SUSE Branding team etc.
I don't run desktop Leap (but Tumbleweed), so I would have never seen that Leap wallpaper to even form an opinion about it. You can't just translate that to "warm feedback" (or cold feedback for that matter).
Specifically the Leap logo modernization was happening in PRs in github.com/openSUSE/artwork and branding way before any poll was considered. https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/pull/138
I'm not sure if people actually looked at the wallpaper and realized it. So do we keep mixed logos across distro, is that what I'm reading? I find this situation pretty awkward as arguments are turning me away from fixing the inconsistency.
I mean, $if_I_were_president, I would not even bother with changing wallpapers every release. Then there would no pressure to repeatedly come up with new designs in the first place.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 13:07:06 +0100 (CET), Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I don't run desktop Leap (but Tumbleweed), so I would have never seen that Leap wallpaper to even form an opinion about it. You can't just translate that to "warm feedback" (or cold feedback for that matter).
Same here, and also those who updated to 15.5 and were not using the default wallpaper probably would never have seen it either, as their previously-set wallpaper preferences would have precluded the new wallpaper being seen. The majority of those who would have seen it would probably not have even known there was a different logo previously (ie, first-time users installing it). There would have been some who were familiar with the old logo who would have installed it, but their focus probably wouldn't be on the desktop wallpaper post-install; they likely would be installing it for a specific purpose (testing, reinstalling a broken system, migrating an old system to a new one, etc). So it seems that this decision is being driven solely by a lack of negative feedback from people who probably would never have had reason to see it (or to notice it) in the first place. This does not seem to be a time to declare "silence is alignment", when nobody had a reason to look for this unannounced (or "stealth announced") change. That seems to be a good reason to hold back on including it at this point (and potentially reversing direction), since the logo change was brought to everyone's attention with the recent vote (regardless of the issues with the vote itself). On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 10:38:01 +0000, Bernd Ritter wrote:
the distro logos are not an identity. They identify a branch of development.
By definition, if they *identify* a branch of development, they are part of the brand *identity*. Identity: the fact of being who or what a person or thing is. Identify: establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is. Q.E.D. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
Hey Jim Am 05.01.24 um 14:23 schrieb Jim Henderson:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 10:38:01 +0000, Bernd Ritter wrote:
the distro logos are not an identity. They identify a branch of development. By definition, if they *identify* a branch of development, they are part of the brand *identity*.
Identity: the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.
Identify: establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is.
Q.E.D.
Nice, that you identify as Tumbleweed Square Thingy. But I would consider myself more to be a geeko or chameleon than that. So technically you're right, but that was not what I meant. Have a lot of fun, Bernd
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 13:54:23 +0000, Bernd Ritter wrote:
Am 05.01.24 um 14:23 schrieb Jim Henderson:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 10:38:01 +0000, Bernd Ritter wrote:
the distro logos are not an identity. They identify a branch of development. By definition, if they *identify* a branch of development, they are part of the brand *identity*.
Identity: the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.
Identify: establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is.
Q.E.D.
Nice, that you identify as Tumbleweed Square Thingy. But I would consider myself more to be a geeko or chameleon than that. So technically you're right, but that was not what I meant.
That wasn't really what I was saying. I was more or less amused that you used words that mean very much the same thing and were saying that they didn't mean the same thing. A bit of early-morning (5 AM-ish) wordplay for me. But in semi-seriousness, it's not always about how the user identifies with the mark or logo, but also about how the product is identified by the mark or logo. I'm no marketing guru, but I've worked with enough of them over the years to know that changing an established logo or mark is not something to do on a whim; even a secondary mark being changed can destroy a brand if it's not done thoughtfully. The distro logos may be used to identify a branch of development (which seems weird to me, but I read "branch" as something in an RCS like git, and that's typically not a graphical image but a branch name), but more importantly to the branding discussion, they identify a product's deliverable (the specific installed product itself). -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
Hi Lubos On 1/5/24 22:27, Lubos Kocman via openSUSE Factory wrote:
Hello
argument taken Simon, however, the situation right now is that we have a default wallpaper for about a year now (since Beta of 15.5 I believe) that already has this new logo and we have about showing the modernized logo. That wallpaper received warm feedback, approval from the SUSE Branding team etc.
Specifically the Leap logo modernization was happening in PRs in github.com/openSUSE/artwork and branding way before any poll was considered. https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/pull/138
I'm not sure if people actually looked at the wallpaper and realized it. So do we keep mixed logos across distro, is that what I'm reading? I find this situation pretty awkward as arguments are turning me away from fixing the inconsistency.
I feel people are raising arguments from the openSUSE project logo change, also for "distribution logo tuneup". I used tuneup on purpose in the case of Leap, as it's effectively slimmed-down variant of the very same logo. I'm aware that other distributions might be in a different situation.
I think the concerns being raised most here are around changes to the project logo rather then the Leap one, from the first snippet I read it was hard to pick up this context. I agree using a Leap logo with a Leap wallpaper makes sense and modernising it also probably isn't an issue because it doesn't have the same brand recognition as the Primary openSUSE logos. Also apologies I didn't even notice the change was made and so i'm pretty sure enlightenment is still using the old wallpaper (I have a theme that will work with the new one so this won't be hard to change for 15.6).
--
Best regards
Luboš Kocman openSUSE Leap Release Manager
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Hello Simon, Am Freitag, 5. Januar 2024, 12:13:57 CET schrieb Simon Lees:
I'll disagree with Axel and say that there could be valid reasons why we as a project would want a different logo and I believe that someone could create a compelling case as to why we as a project should change logo and present that to members.
In fact, you agree. To quote myself:
Only if there is a certain reason, e.g. because it is burned or the scope of your business changes
-> this could be the compelling case! Some stuff to read about rebranding and logo change: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/01/when-to-give-your-logo-a-facelift-rebrand/[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2021/03/23/when-is-it-the-right-time-to-rebrand/[2] https://www.tailorbrands.com/blog/logo-redesign[3] (additional 2c - running out of money now) Axel -------- [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/01/when-to-give-y... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2021/03/23/when-is-it-the-right-time-to-... [3] https://www.tailorbrands.com/blog/logo-redesign
On 1/6/24 02:39, Axel Braun wrote:
Hello Simon,
Am Freitag, 5. Januar 2024, 12:13:57 CET schrieb Simon Lees:
I'll disagree with Axel and say that there could be valid reasons why we
as a project would want a different logo and I believe that someone
could create a compelling case as to why we as a project should change
logo and present that to members.
In fact, you agree.
I don't actually
To quote myself:
Only if there is a certain reason, e.g. because it is burned or the scope of your business changes
-> this could be the compelling case!
Well quoting what you said more fully
You dont change an identity or brand just for the fun of it. Only if there is a certain reason, e.g. because it is burned or the scope of your business changes
I see neither of these reasons for openSUSE
One could argue that the scope of "openSUSE" has moved from just being the open part of SUSE to being a much more independent open source project and one way to avoid confusion around this would be to change to a different logo while keepign the same name as not a full rebrand. I'm not 100% convinced I agree with this yet but I believe it is the case being made and that its probably worth taking to the membership to hear there opinions. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Am Samstag, 6. Januar 2024, 11:16:51 CET schrieb Simon Lees:
Well quoting what you said more fully
You dont change an identity or brand just for the fun of it. Only if there is a certain reason, e.g. because it is burned or the scope of your business changes
I see neither of these reasons for openSUSE
One could argue that the scope of "openSUSE" has moved from just being the open part of SUSE to being a much more independent open source project and one way to avoid confusion around this would be to change to a different logo while keepign the same name as not a full rebrand. I'm not 100% convinced I agree with this yet but I believe it is the case being made and that its probably worth taking to the membership to hear there opinions.
https://en.opensuse.org/Main_Page The way the project undertands itself is already for a long time not only the 'free part of SUSE' We definitely should get a member vote on this Cheers Axel
participants (9)
-
Axel Braun -
Bernd Ritter -
Christian Boltz -
Jan Engelhardt -
Jim Henderson -
Lubos Kocman -
Patrick Shanahan -
Richard Brown -
Simon Lees