I'll also put forward, I ***really*** (3 stars!) like 'help fund' as the first
two words of our slogan.
I think we're nearing a couple of final options. Perhaps it would be a good
idea to conduct some (informal) "market research"? Make a survey that lists a
couple of our top choices and ask a few questions about what associations they
bring to mind (ex, 'What do you think "Snowdrift.coop: help fund digital
commons" does?').
On September 20, 2015 3:29:41 PM EDT, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
>
>
>On 09/20/2015 03:34 AM, mray wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>I'm not sure about the dynamicness of "we fund" over "funding". I
>really
>like the "ing", however, I agree about the collective / join us issue.
>
>I wish it wasn't as long, but the feeling of togetherness is better
>spelled out. Ignoring length, "Working together to fund the digital
>commons" is the best way to completely get all the meaning. Another
>would be "collective funding of the digital commons" or "social funding
>for the digital commons" or "coming together to fund the digital
>commons" or, how about: "join us in funding the digital commons!" or
>shorter version of that, "fund the digital commons with us!" or, I like
>this best of my little brainstorm here: "help us fund the digital
>commons!" variations of that: "help fund the digital commons" or "let's
>fund the digital commons" …
>
>I'm not opposed to "we" entirely, but I would like to get feedback from
>others and see what others think of variations like I just posted.
>
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>Yes, so accepting the gratis fuzziness, I don't see "free" in our
>slogan
>as unacceptable, but I still dislike the lack of clarity, and the
>inconsistency in terminology.
>
>>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>
>
>"we fund commons" actually doesn't work well natively in English.
>"commons" does not equal "the commons". It's similar to "internet"
>versus "the internet", we *can* say "we'll connect on the internet",
>but
>we never say "we'll connect on internet" — even though we *could* say
>that, nobody does and it sounds quite weird. Another similar term is
>"arts" vs "the arts". "We support arts" sounds very weird, "we support
>the arts" sounds normal. When talking about the *concept* the general
>thing and not some *countable* plural, the "the" is basically required.
>
>To me. "we fund digital commons" sounds like "we don't just fine that
>digital common, we fund this other one too, in fact, we fund a bunch of
>commons. And the term "common" as a noun is extremely weird, basically
>unused in common (as an adjective) English, whereas the term "the
>commons" is not so rare, sounds okay.
>
>ToI also know from experience that if we use it a lot, my mind's
>reaction to "fund digital commons" as "AAEENT ERROR BAD ENGLISH,
>WHERE'S
>THE 'THE'" *will* go away eventually, because that's happened to me
>multiple times before, like when I first heard the programming term "a
>closure" but then got more used to it. However, if I have that bad
>reaction initially, others may also. So, I definitely vote for "the" in
>"the digital commons". And I'd only accept losing the "the" if a
>supermajority of people we run it by think it sounds fine without the
>"the". If most people, especially English-speaking natives, think it's
>fine as "we fund digital commons" (ugh that still sounds so bad to me),
>I would probably accept that it's just me, but I worry it sounds bad to
>basically all native English speakers.
>
>
>> hm.. what I found was this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Commons
>> is that a problem for us?
>>
>
>I looked into it, and it really could be an issue.
>
>http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78620698&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
>
>That one is not really covering us, it's educational/training services,
>but…
>
>https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77171944&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
>
>"Online services, namely, design, creation, hosting, and maintenance of
>websites for educational organizations containing scholarly data,
>information, and digital content "
>
>That definitely isn't exactly us, but we could still *not* be called
>"Digital Commons", however, having a slogan, not a name, and one that
>simply *includes* "digital commons" and we aren't exactly about hosting
>scholarly data, but still, lots of overlap… I dunno…
>
>Clearly "digital commons" is also a recognized generic language term:
>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/digital_commons
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_commons_%28economics%29
>
>That last one reaffirms our use of the term so strongly, that it makes
>me like the term even more for our slogan.
>
>Incidentally, "fund the digital commons" as a complete phrase in an
>online search shows only results about Snowdrift.coop already! The
>phrase I used in our fund drive was "Help launch Snowdrift.coop to fund
>the digital commons"
>
>> my favorites currently are:
>>
>> #1 "we fund free culture"
>> #2 "we fund digital commons"
>> #3 "we fund the digital commons"
>>
>
>Despite my loss aversion over things I like about the current slogan,
>I'll leave that behind and say: I like some form of "…fund… digital
>commons" best, whether it has the "ing" or "we" or another variation
>from my stuff above. I think "the digital commons" with the "the" is
>the
>best we've got. I suppose if we had to avoid the trademark issue,
>"online commons" is, well, I don't love it…
>
>-Aaron
>
>
>--
>Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
>https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
