On Tuesday 08 March 2016 03:32:42 Michele Calgaro wrote:
> On 03/07/2016 08:37 PM, Thomas Maus wrote:
> > Here my batch of draft "trefoil knot" designs.
> > (Drafts -- meaning not necessarily ready for use, as all previous batches
> > too)
>
> <snip>
>
> Great stuff Thomas.
> Treefoil_know_3TM looks gorgeous and 1TM looks good as well. 2TM is also to
> consider. Probably you and E. would have to work out the colors, but to me
> it looks a nice candidate.
>
> Cheers
>   Michele

Why do we need a new logo?  And even more, why do we need a new colour scheme?  
We seem to be diving into design without asking those questions.  The present 
blue is very pleasant, and changing logo often loses what one had before.  
Change for change's sake seems to me to be a Bad Thing.

The point of a trademark is to be instantly recognisable.  The Bournemouth 
football team's nickname is "the Cherries".  The New Zealand rugby team 
is "the All Blacks".  My university has been known for several hundred years 
by its colour.  Could they usefully change their colour on a whim?  Changes 
of name, trademark etc. involve huge amounts of advertising to link the old 
and the new.

The whole point of TDE is that it ISN'T new and glitzy and shiny.  It's 
functional.  That is its raison d'�tre and its strength.

But anyway, why change?  One  has to have a very good reason for changing an 
established brand. The British Post Office spent an enormous sum of money 
changing its name to Consignia.  It then had to spend an enormous sum of 
money changing it back.

Tim has said that what we need, in order to expand, is money and developers.  
I personally do not see how we are to get more developers and more money 
without more users.  But it is not up to me.  I have specifically been asked 
to stop proselytising for now, and have done so.  

Killing the very identity and distinctiveness of TDE by "modernising" it, is 
not, IMHO, likely to bring great rewards. 

Lisi