[Board] Proposal for change of Sponsor levels naming and logos

[Dave McIlhagga]

One of the problems with this is it clearly positions sponsors as  
"1st, 2nd & 3rd" and I'm not sure that's really the message we want to  
send -- the existing model provides an identification of appreciation  
of the support we receive without it having a strong connotation of  
"Better or Worse".

I think this is the primary reason why gold, silver, bronze are not  
used as sponsorship levels for non-profit organizations. Most  
foundations / non-profits take a similar model to the one we currently  
have in place.

Dave



On 17-Jun-08, at 7:07 AM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:

> Dear all,
> Arnulf and I have a quick proposal to make concerning the names we  
> use for OSGeo sponsors.
> Why?
> - First because we are working on new logos for sponsors and the  
> colors we used for the text Associate, Supporting and Sustaining  
> don't work well with the respective colors (Gold, Silver and  
> Bronze). Gold and Bronze are too similar.
> - Second, and that's actually why we indeed would propose the  
> change, is that the names themselves are not as clear to me as they  
> could be. Is a supporting sponsor worth more than a sustaining, or  
> the other way around?
>
> Proposal:
> Simply use Gold, Silver and Bronze Sponsors instead (if need be we  
> can always add a Platinum Sponsor for that one huge sponsor we now  
> only dream of ;-) ).
>
> Ciao, Arnulf and Jeroen from the OSGeo Hacking event in Bolsena
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board