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.
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-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.
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.
No doubt. It clearly seems that I'm not communicating well enough. But just to be clear: is not in Wasmer intent to own the Wasm trademarks (as stated in the Github issue).
And to answer your question: yes, I deleted the comment because I thought it was going to start a non-productive discussion (it had 1 point at the moment of deletion). Then I realized deleting could provoke some other issues, and decided to repost again.
Yeah, I know there is a spectrum of people that downvote my comments... and it's ok!
> We registered the trademarks as part of other process that we were not super diligent with
You accidentally attempted to register a trademark?
I have never heard of that. Either you are small enough that the non-trivial tediousness and cost of the process catches a lot of attention. Or you are large enough to have a general counsel overseeing a documented chain of approvals.
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
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.
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)
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.
They stated that a proper logo process would require too much of their time to devote to right now and they don't want a half-assed process. Also, to your proposal to manage the process, they clearly don't trust you after your company tried that trademark BS. So from their point of view anything you're involved with would actually require even more of their attention due to potential legal liability.
So it's not about not being a main member but rather about being basically seen as a bad actor to the community. Actions have consequences and the consequence for the trademark BS is being seen as an enemy of the community. The way to resolve that is to not annoy them about things while being as helpful as possible. Your comments on Github definitely are not that (they're adversarial, clearly annoy them with something they don't want to deal with, etc.) which simply cements their view of you being a bad actor.
edit: Your attitude is one I've seen before and it works in getting things from people who are forced to deal with you (service workers, employees, government officials, etc.). It does not work for people who can just walk away, block you or blacklist you since they will just do that.
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.
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.
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.
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:
