For me I don't think I need a pandoc logo. But as someone who loves pandoc and want other people to use pandoc too, a logo is good PR. I think most people here probably think this way, as a logo really is for promotion, for public recognition. There's many kinds of things we want to improve pandoc, and one kind is basically to make other people use it so that I can keep using it. (e.g. why someone want to make pandoc documents more reproducible is that if so it makes it possible to collaborate using pandoc and hence one can stay using pandoc when collaborating, to over-simplify the issue.)

I don't think it is as negative as those wordings appears to be. The chain of thoughts in those conversations above (if I interpret correctly) was that we weren't designers so we hit a creativity wall. Recall we almost had a decision years ago that when it came to the design stage (after having 5 good candidates from concepts only), but then we hit a roadblock that no one can turn those nice concepts into presentable logo. IMO the one from Alexis is good enough to use as is. It is not only a good concept but a deliverable product. (Yes it can be improved but it is publishable as is, and over time when someone has the talent and time to improve we should allow room for that.)

So IMO if that's the one you like, then why not. Sure different people has slightly different preferences and may have our own philosophical biases. But I don't think anyone hate that logo. It is more a matter of can we do better. But if the most important opinion here thinks that's better then I don't think you'd have strong opposition since it is not bad.