At first blush:

In T8549#120808, @chad wrote:

The colors are the same as the "bar color" that currently exists. We added an icon and tooltip for more information and flexibility. This will allow better flexibility in apps like Maniphest, where you could use the icon to covey different states instead of just "open" and "closed".

Next one: In S2, click Space Test Users (the policy at the top, right next to "Active"). You see a dialogue with the text:

Users with the "Can View" capability:

The colors are the same as the "bar color" that currently exists. We added an icon and tooltip for more information and flexibility. This will allow better flexibility in apps like Maniphest, where you could use the icon to covey different states instead of just "open" and "closed".

My first question: What do the colours of the exclamation marks in front of the tasks mean? i see purble, blue, orange, but neither the tooltip, nor any other part of the list item gives any hint regarding their meaning.

Although I like the name Phabricator, and I am not so fond of the logo, I don't think anyone should fault the upstream for their priorities, and the fact that you need to keep your options open, to maintain design flexibility, that is totally reasonable.

In T4214#98858, @chad wrote:

Been thinking if we go back to the rainbow logo, no one will want to change it maybe?

This got raised to "Normal" so we could brand Phacility on admin.phacility.com

In T4214#120383, @qgil wrote:

What I didn't explain is that this Phabricator header was one of the most contentious topics among some of our most experienced volunteers and some of my managers too. They were happy to fork the header and assume the cost of maintaining the local code. I calmed the discussion by promising that one day this will be fixed. So yes, communities care about their logos.

PS: if my story encouraged you to lower the priority from Normal to Wishlist, maybe I should have done something different on my Friday afternoon. :)
PS2: The "spooky eye" is not an hypothetical expression, I'm just quoting. In any case, as of today it doesn't compete with the popularity of the "Phabricator" wordmark.

+1 to what qgil says.

Previously, we had one logo (eye + wordmark). On mobile, the eye was hidden leaving just the workmark. This was because of space constraints. In allowing installs to change the "logo", it made sense to have that be the workmark, which would appear on mobile. Eventually we resolved the mobile header and reclaimed that space, showing again both the eye and wordmark. I can't guarantee this will last depending on how Spaces plays out. If we add switching into the header, we might go back to hiding the eye on mobile. This is why we're currently replacing the wordmark.

What I didn't explain is that this Phabricator header was one of the most contentious topics among some of our most experienced volunteers and some of my managers too. They were happy to fork the header and assume the cost of maintaining the local code. I calmed the discussion by promising that one day this will be fixed. So yes, communities care about their logos.

In T4214#120376, @qgil wrote:

We call it "Wikimedia Phabricator" and our community talks about "Phabricator". Therefore [Wikimedia logo] + "Phabricator" makes sense, while "[What is this spooky eye?] + "Wikimedia" will create more confusion than the vanilla Phabricator header. I think the perceptions in other communities using Phabricator will be similar. All of them know their own logos, and all of them will recognize "Phabricator".

We call it "Wikimedia Phabricator" and our community talks about "Phabricator". Therefore [Wikimedia logo] + "Phabricator" makes sense, while "[What is this spooky eye?] + "Wikimedia" will create more confusion than the vanilla Phabricator header. I think the perceptions in other communities using Phabricator will be similar. All of them know their own logos, and all of them will recognize "Phabricator".

I think that Phabricator should be "white label" software that anyone can take and quickly configure so it looks like it comes 100% from their own organization. That way, new users won't have any idea they are using Phabricator, and will instead think their own organization has some sweet tools, or in the SaaS competitor case, that SaaS competitor A really builds some great software!

I agree with @20after4: We would also like to insert our organisation's logo instead of the "eye". Replacing the text alone feels insufficient.

@chad: No, we just want a way to nuke the "eye" logo.

You want less space?

So the current behavior is exactly the opposite of what I expected - changing the "logo" changes the "PHABRICATOR" wordmark in the header but leaves the eye image. Hmmm... I would think it better to keep phabricator but replace the eye.

To tie in some context:

And the ability to actually see custom policy details such as the one for our "Can Edit Task Projects" Maniphest application policy please.

@epriestley is the best.

See T5240.

@Yomi file a task? This task is for a visual refresh only. If there are existing bugs, they should be filed and tracked as normal.

Workboards
Worth exploring new UI here to match new overall lighter style. A slimmer header should also save space.

D13040 makes this not blocking of the Redesign.