On 18.09.2015 19:14, Aaron Wolf wrote: > > Robert, I basically agree with all your critiques of the current slogan, > and the clunkiness of ", together" although it's still clear that "we" > doesn't jump out as a welcome inclusiveness. In fact, I think it's weak > enough that it's better to go with concise and eliminate "we" rather > than have it. >
So you agree we need another slogan? @"we": "we" might be less inclusive than "together", but my point was that it addresses the human factor at all. (unlike "funding free culture"). "we" is almost as important as the financial and freedom parts of us. "together" overreaches in that aspect in my opinion. Let's face it: We are a closed club! We ask people to get on board, open up an account and trust their money with us. Our whole point is to persuade people to join the in-group. Not drawing a line makes that hard. "we" is also short. > The main complaint I have about your proposals and suggestions is that > you spend most of your time saying "these are the qualities we want" > (which I agree with) and "this is how the current slogan falls short" > (which I agree with), but you're not adequately addressing the *serious* > flaws with the word "free" (which are still somewhat present in the > phrase "free culture"). > > It generally feels like you say "the current slogan is not good, > therefore this other one is good" without actually addressing the > concerns about the new proposal. "Free" on its own is so bad for various > reasons (jingoism and confusion about gratis) that I and others have > been arguing that it is *worse* than the admittedly clunky and not great > "free*libre*open". I was responding to the (rightful) challenge to explain why a new slogan is necessary. *If* we can agree that there needs to be a new slogan there is no need to point out the flaws repeatedly. I did address "free" in my previous mail: - "free" admittedly is not perfect (like its alternatives!) - "free" is closest to "freedom" - "free" changes associations next to "fund" and "culture" - "free" generally has a *very* positive connotation - "free" is short. btw, I second Bryans note that we should not shy away from "free" because others use it in other contexts. > > I don't think anyone disagrees with your critiques of the current > slogan. The concern is about serious problems with the alternatives. When we agree we need a new slogan, lets also agree that our ultimate concern is having a slogan that works where the old one didn't! Otherwise I don't see what we are trying to achieve here. Despite its shortcomings I agree on using "free" here in the slogan because it is catchy and sticks and works good enough - leaving idealistic precision behind and accepting a *certain* degree of fuzziness on purpose. > > A concise option: "Funding the free*libre*open commons" — despite the > clunkiness, there's value in embracing a *consistent* term across all > our messaging. There *is* a value in consistent terminology, but it does not trump the need to have non-clunky slogan. > > And for removing clunkiness and getting more brief: "Funding the free > and open commons" That's only a bit less clunky and 2 characters shorter. Open commons sounds strange to me. > > I don't love it but: "Funding the digital commons" is kinda ok. I really > don't like the feel of the word "digital" though. I like this, but I miss the "we". Initially I had problems with "digital", too. But I come to the conclusion that the reproduction of goods at no cost is essential to our cause. It appears to be part of the deal by definition. What about: "we fund digital commons" ? > > -Aaron > > P.S.And while funding *is* the key feature, our vision is to have the > best FLO commons and stop the amount of resources that get locked up in > proprietary stuff. So, I happen to feel some sympathy toward not saying > "funding" in the slogan because I'd rather we think of funding as a > means to the end and focus on the end rather than the means, because it > leaves us open to working on promoting FLO and volunteering alongside > funding — but despite my sympathies in that way, I *do* buy the argument > that focusing on funding makes more sense, so I'm okay with that. The > term "free" is the one that has to be addressed because it is so bad in > practice in reaching out to the general public. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
