On 09/21/2015 10:48 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > > > On 09/21/2015 08:09 AM, mray wrote: >> >> >> On 20.09.2015 21:29, Aaron Wolf 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. >>> >> >> I don't like recruiting in the slogan. "join us...", "help us..." is a >> bit like begging right from the start. >> The slogan should not be about what we want people to do, but about what >> we do. >> > > "Help us" sounds a more like begging than just "Help". "Help us free the > commons" sounds more hard-sell vs "Help free the commons". > > I'm very much in favor of: "Snowdrift.coop: Help free the commons". > > It comes across both as a welcome inclusive call to action and what we > do. It can even work as the answer to "What do you do?": "[we] help [to] > free the commons" > > the long version of this is "we help the community in freeing the commons" > > All this said, I basically disagree that "help us" is bad or detracts > from what we do. > > Now, if we break this down to it's utter core and drop even this nuance, > we're left with what actually seems pretty solid: > > FREE THE COMMONS > > That's it. Total chant, rallying cray, *verb*, uses "free" but without > the confusion… I feel good about it the moment I just wrote that… >
Follow-up: "Free The Commons" seems a pretty unused new phrase, so I feel good about it. Only real result is this short-lived blog (a couple hundred posts in 2011-2012 and nothing since) by someone who I bet I'd get along with great: http://freethecommons.com It's a sort of conservationist-anarchist-not-too-extreme guy focusing on the one thing we aren't focusing on: parks and public lands, but our *metaphor* is all about this, it's about how the shareable works online *are* like the issues of public lands. We could certainly reach out to this guy (who almost surely does not have a registered trademark on his site). I didn't read any of his writings really at this point, although they look interesting. At this point, my vote is to go with this: "Free the commons!" It's extremely succinct, vague enough, broad enough, appropriate enough, not beggy, not too jargonny, it *rings* nicely, it's easy to say and promote… I really really like it. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
