On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote: > >> @"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 reason I value the "we" so strongly is because we need to make clear that snowdrift is something to be part of. "funding" alone makes it remain unclear how the funding is done, but this is the *VERY* essence of our cause, it is "WE" who are funding this. not some snowdrift entity. along with "we fund" any appeal like "join us" makes so much more sense, it just fits way better. aesthetically i don't care about either form that much. "We fund" is more dynamic than "funding" I think, though. >... > > 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. This is what I mean by fuzziness that I'm willing to accept in a slogan. "free" isn't precise enough to exactly phrase what we mean, *BUT* the whole gratis angle plays in our hands, too. After all the most relevant freedom for people in our case is to get digital goods without cost! Sure the freedom to inspect and change does not get explicitly included as we would like, but I see we can do that well enough later where we don't have the pressure to be brief and catchy. And "free" isn't wrong! If it was it would not matter how, short positive and catchy it is. We just have to rely on people to read _at least_ a bit more about the project than our slogan. I even see how we have a _freedom_ to leave things a open in terms of exact interpretation, "free" is after all a very broad term. > ... >> 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" I'd leave "the" out for brevities sake alone. It does not seem to add anything other than length. As a native German speaker I'm often tempted to add too many "the"s, but I don't miss it here. "the digital commons" somehow suggests to me that there is an established term that it refers to. But afaik there isn't. hm.. what I found was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Commons is that a problem for us? my favorites currently are: #1 "we fund free culture" #2 "we fund digital commons" #3 "we fund the digital commons" -Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
