Received: from localhost ([::1]:50092 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YowFg-0001jv-5V; Sun, 03 May 2015 08:56:21 -0700 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]:38791) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YowFH-0001jO-KV for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 03 May 2015 08:56:11 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:2000:211:9ff:fe00:d54e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DD094892 for ; Sun, 3 May 2015 17:55:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (arj@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.14.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id t43Ftk0w019052 for ; Sun, 3 May 2015 17:55:46 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id t43FtjNL019045 for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 3 May 2015 17:55:45 +0200 Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 17:55:45 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: llg-members@lojban.org Message-ID: <20150503155545.GG2137@nvg.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Official logos of Lojban, LLG. X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:45:59AM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > I'm not aware of any official logos of LLG. In fact I know that only Lojban > logo was approved. > > So I propose approving of the following vector images: > > 1. Make the following vector image the official flag of Lojban: > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:creka_lojban-2400.svg > > 2. Make the following vector image the official logo of LLG: > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:lojban_logo_cizra.svg > > The meeting is over and now we can only approve anything unofficially. As far as I understand, the former symbol has been the official symbol for both Lojban the language, and the LLG, for a number of years. In my opinion it should remain so, for reasons of continuity. I have no objections against using it as a flag, but doubt if we need a formal decision to do so. I also think that creating the latter symbol was a mistake, and that it should preferably not be used at all, much less adopted officially. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ I owe, I owe - so off to work I go. _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members