On 09/19/2015 05:09 AM, mray wrote: > > 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? >
No, I think "need" another slogan is too strong. It's not a blocker at the level of make-or-break or that the current slogan is fundamentally unworkable or negative. I would agree that a better slogan would be *nice*, and that if we were to agree on one, it makes sense to do it in conjunction with printing stickers and shirts. > @"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. > Although subtle, the ".coop" part of the name already includes the community aspect. Aesthetically, I like "funding" better than "we fund", and the "ing" part emphasizes the ongoing aspect of things. I don't feel strongly here though. >> 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. > The way that "free" is different next to "culture" and "fund" is still inadequate. In my experience with non-insiders, "open" is orders of magnitude more likely to bring people to think about what we mean than any context with just "free". No matter what we do, the association of "free" with no-charge is completely overwhelming, far far beyond the issue of "a few others use it in a context we don't like". "shareable" is a better example of a word that still mostly means what we want it to mean but where "others use it in other contexts". I.e. Bryan's note that you agree with is a reasonable defense of using "shareable", i.e. "Shareable is still a good word, despite our dislike of the way some people use it." "Free" has problems that are much deeper than that. Let me be completely clear: the *only* reason I think it's okay at all to consider a slogan that just says "free" but doesn't include "open" is because we actually *want* projects on Snowdrift.coop to be accessible at no-charge, gratis. So, we *are* talking about funding the work to make things that are then gratis to the world. So, emphasizing that we're building a no-charge commons is OKAY. Thus, I don't totally reject "free" alone. But we shouldn't fool ourselves, in a short slogan, "free" will continue to emphasize gratis no matter what we do. It does not bring to mind a distinction between FLO and proprietary for most people. The word that does that best for most English speakers is "open". And "open" is a word where Bryan's point stands: our main objection is that others use it in ways we don't like, and maybe that isn't a strong enough objection. >> >> 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. > Non-clunky and consistent are both values. This is a trade-off here. I think the order of priorities is: 1. the impression it gives is what we want to send, 2. non-clunky, 3. consistent terminology So I agree that consistency is lower priority. My bigger point is that clunkiness is lower priority than delivering the right message. >> >> 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" ? > I just really prefer the aesthetics of "funding the digital commons" more than "we fund the digital commons". Hard to put into words. I think we need the "the" either way. In defense of the "digital commons" as the direction (with either "we" or "…ing"), it avoids inconsistency with FLO elsewhere, avoids partisanship on the FLO wording debate, it accurately describes our mission, and we can build on it from there to explain to people *what* the digital commons is, and that FLO terms are necessary to be truly part of the commons… Reflecting on this now, a bit after I wrote it, I think "digital commons" is probably the best balance of everything. To build on Paul's post, "funding the commons" seems the most core thing, but we aren't funding parks and roads actually, and so "digital commons" does remove the vagueness substantially. My only complaint about "digital commons" is that it emphasizes something incidental, the medium for sharing. I want to emphasize the importance of journalism, science, music, art… and not seem like this is a site focused on concerns of technophiles. But that's a minor concern we can deal with otherwise and doesn't seem enough to reject this proposal. I think "funding the digital commons" is good and significantly better in many important ways over "we fund free culture". I would be happiest if we had a better word than "digital" and I don't really like "funding the internet commons" or "funding the online 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. >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
