On 09/20/2015 02:02 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > > > On September 20, 2015 4:12:03 PM EDT, David Thomas <davidleotho...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Count me amongst those who feel "Funding ..." sounds too much like >> we've got a big pool of money we're giving out based on our >> (exclusive) discretion, and I don't think "We fund" does much to fix >> it. >> >> "Working together to fund..." is better on that count, and doesn't >> strike me as terribly awkward, but there was talk of tracking >> non-monetary contribution as well, and I'm not sure whether we want to >> exclude that in our slogan. >> >> Most fundamentally, we are "coordinating people to mobilize resources >> to help build the commons of non-rival goods". Which is, of course, a >> horrible slogan... > > I have a few questions that I think might help us come to common ground on > our disagreements. But first, some view-bait: > > What if www.snowdrift.coop *were* purely a fundraising platform for FLO works? >
Interesting brainstorm, but I don't think there's enough distinction between the site and the org in terms of mission to be worthwhile. I personally dislike any "www" junk being pushed into things, especially as an attempt to distinguish the site. If we were to make such a distinction, it would be "the Snowdrift Cooperative" vs "Snowdrift.coop". I don't think the distinction is helpful enough right now though. > I want to draw your attention to what may be an important distinction: "www." > When I think of snowdrift.coop the ORGANIZATION /COMMUNITY, I think of a lot > more than funding. But when I think of the SITE (which I propose we > distinguish by referring to it with the www prefix) or describe it to > friends, I talk almost exclusively about the fundraising aspect. > > So, I have a couple questions for you all: > > - Do you feel that the site and the organization/community are distinct > entities? > - If so, must they have the same slogan? > - Which slogan are we brainstorming for right now? > To be clear, the slogan we are concerned about right now is: "what do we print on stickers and shirts, and what goes on the site homepage?" Whether we have more than one slogan in the long run for different purposes is a matter we can leave open but ignore for now. >> If "digital commons" sounds too computery, some alternatives to >> "digital" (none of which I like, but might give someone else an idea): >> "non-rival", "non-subtractable", "shareable". > > I think "digital commons" sounds about the right amount of computery for a > description of what we actually fund (ie, as it's currently used on the > site). However, I'm concerned that in a slogan it comes off as "by geeks for > geeks" and might turn off your "average" person. Quotes because by average, I > still mean the demographic that's likely to participate in a crowdfunding > campaign. > > Unfortunately, I think your alternatives are neither as clear nor as catchy, > and I can't think of better alternatives. > I also highly dislike the "this is for geeks" implications of "digital commons" but also have no better solution. But the issue with Digital Commons being trademarked is the other concern. I think "Help fund the digital commons" is a very good prospect. To continue with the scope, what we are not doing is local infrastructure like parks and such — although in the very long-term, maybe we'd ever branch out to that. Is it that important that we emphasize that we *aren't* for parks? Here's a proposal: "Help fund the commons" That's super short, it includes the "join us" element, the "funding" element, and the scope that this is all about resources we all share… and that's it. It won't have any trademark issues, it doesn't sound geeky/nerdy *at all*. The *only* downside is that people will wonder if it covers rivalrous stuff like parks. Maybe that's not a concern. We can clarify right away that our *focus* is on shareable online works and that works online don't *count* as being commons unless they are FLO. So… As I think through the issues… I'm going to state that my vote right now goes to this new idea, again:: **Help fund the commons** I like "help" as a call to action far far far far better than "we", and it's nice and super short, it doesn't have insider terms, and the system we're building *does* make sense for all sorts of commons, even though our focus is online commons… My main concern is that "help fund the commons" (and most of the similar proposals) all look a bit too non sequitur next to image of shoveling snow, primarily because shoveling doesn't look like my image of "funding"… So that leads me to some new brainstormed ideas… "Help free the commons" — by whatever means we can, funding, work etc. and *this* use of free as a *verb* has less confusion compared to free as an adjective. This slogan is clean, clear, short, and fits both the mission and the metaphor and image of shoveling the snow. I just ran this by my wife, and she thinks this is best, so despite what I wrote above, I think this is the best balance of meaningful, appropriate, and not to jargony or pigeon-holing, and focusing the end goal, not the means. My vote now: ***Help Free the Commons*** It implies that there is an *ostensible* commons but it is locked down or inaccessible, covered in / blocked by snow / by proprietary restrictions… we're going to free it together! HELP FREE THE COMMONS! >> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM, 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
