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.

>people with low-vision.

What does this mean? How does this relate to current logo? Is this a color blindness issue?

There is a color accessibility issue with the current logo.

I've explained it here: https://speakerdeck.com/syrusakbary/wasi-logo-proposal

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.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/images-of-text.h...

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:

https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-cont...

>Logotypes: Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no minimum contrast requirement.