@jeffmcneill @soulcutter @Codeberg Eh, there's a good idea here and there, but it's true that there's (as expected) a lot of things that would not be "usable as-is", but they still have value in the sense that they're an expression of "how one sees/thinks of Codeberg" in one sentence.

Thank you for the advice; I'll take a look into the suggestion.

@jeffmcneill @soulcutter @Codeberg But I think I understand better that the fact that I did not clarify "we'd check in with all relevant stakeholders and brainstorm it anyway - but perhaps use a few starting points" (and the subsequent lack of transparency in that regard) in the posts above was part of what led to your response though.

@jeffmcneill @soulcutter @Codeberg I'd describe Codeberg as a "DIY project", in the sense that we do many things by ourselves and learn along the way.

Perhaps that could've been communicated better (other than the follow-up reply), but there are other team members focused on Public Relations and we'd consult others as well. As in, what you're describing is something that we'd do (instead of purely letting "others define us" with no control).

@jeffmcneill @soulcutter @Codeberg Overall, I don't think I saw or that I'm seeing much harm in exploring something that I just had genuine curiosity over and asking other people.

(But I'm not a professional.)

@jeffmcneill @soulcutter @Codeberg I disagree. A logo is something that you cannot easily change or adjust (something that you "pick") - the implicit question here is "how would you describe Codeberg in a sentence", not "we'll pick one sentence out of all of them" (hence "call for inspiration").

We work on free and open-source, so we love DIY'ing. (And also, if one were to take the logo comparison at face value, it has worked well for other communities like Comaps: https://codeberg.org/comaps/Governance/issues/73)

@tinx @Codeberg but to be clear, the case you are mentioning is a hypothetical, and I don't think our process of deciding to stand behind something that we're supposed to represent (whereas otherwise activating as many people as possible makes sense) is much different to that of other orgs (those with assemblies and whatnot) on the list.

@tinx @Codeberg I'll keep that in mind and raise it the next time, maybe we can figure out a quick vibe-check or something without a full-blown vote that would reduce agility, but...

I'm already debating w/ a friend on whether it's really effective to contact your MEPs instead of just the DMA team's e-mail address (and that alone potentially jeopardizing the purpose of a letter - which might or might not be besides the point), let alone given the scale of 1300+ people and 30 day turnover times.

@tinx @Codeberg It is also possible to raise hell if you think we're not doing our job properly and, as has happened in the past, if you'd like for Codeberg to stand for something but the "presidium isn't listening", it is possible to put a proposal forward and have everyone vote on it (in a more "direct democracy" kind of way).

@tinx @Codeberg I considered this before casting my vote, but we do ask the general assembly for the following and try to include it whenever we need guidance (e.g. opinions on controversial topics): https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.md#8-general-assembly

For a matter that is (from my perspective) in line with our non-profit's enshrined mission (see: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.md#2-purpose-and-tasks) while representing both users and members, I am not sure why it's bad that we, as appointed representatives, did not (at least this time around).