To me, that reminds me of the reasoning that leads to people asking in the chatterbox, "Can anybody answer a Catalyst question?"

It is pretty useless to get a feel for how for or against members are to site changes in the abstract. And trying to gauge a mandate, solicit contributions, form a committee team, and come up with a new design sounds like a perfect way to make no progress.

If you really want a change in site appearance to happen, then sit down, look at the details, and produce a new appearance and then offer up your concrete, real, precise, can-be-tried-out suggestion of an improvement / alternative. Then we can gauge how people like or dislike that (and all can make concrete suggestions about how to improve it). Heck, much of the time we don't even have to do that, we just make it available as an option.

This is how the "Perl Blue" theme came to be.

One minor request from me. I think it'd be great to change the default theme, especially in fairly minor ways. But I'm somewhat reluctant to make the default be the "Perl Blue" theme. Changing the default theme to be the same as the most popular not-currently-default theme means that a lot of people will have a harder time telling when they somehow got logged out. I'd like to have a new theme that is more likely to appeal to casual visitors and at least one additional new theme that has some features that would appeal to more "serious" members where those features are likely to be noticed more than the <h1><blink> warnings that we have added. ;)

Update: (Yes, I should do this as a new reply. Sorry, I'm not going to.) And, if you want a new "look" to be the default, then you can't use fixed sizes for elements. I'm so sick of the ubiquity of CSS page designs that throw in "width: 600 px;" for no reason.