Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Aaron Wolf 


On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> I am writing a lengthier missive on this topic, but I wanted to
> briefly summarize my point of view. After much deliberation I have
> come to agree with most of Robert's points. Right now my top choice is
> "We support the digital commons".
> 
> Well, ok, I'll make this one a little longer right now. There are a
> couple things I think we need to address explicitly that have gotten
> only passing mention so far: Who is the audience, and what is the
> context for the message?
> 
> It seems quite clear that the audience is the general public, and I
> think it should be. That means FLO is out. Libre is out. Free is out.
> Open is meh. "The commons", on the other hand, is a well-established
> noun (late 14th century, according to etymonline.com) that means
> exactly what we want. "The digital commons" is the perfect narrowing
> of focus that reflects who we are. (Sorry, Robert, it definitely needs
> "the" to be proper English.) "Support" is the most concise word to
> describe our mission, a point I will expand on in my next email. It
> also has a delightful double meaning that is so en vogue for slogans:
> It evokes both a statement of solidarity ("We support workers'
> rights...") as well as hinting at what we actually do.
> 
> Now, what is the context? I think the context is "a phrase we can put
> next to our logo, wherever we deign to put our logo". I can think of
> two concrete examples that demonstrate it: a t-shirt and a flyer.
> Let's start with the flyer:
> 
> 
> Help Free The Commons!
> 
>   We at Snowdrift.coop lorem ipsum
>   dolor sit amet, consectetur
>   adipiscing elit. Donec a diam
>   lectus. Sed sit amet ipsum
>   mauris.  Maecenas congue ligula
>   ac quam viverra nec consectetur
>   ante hendrerit. Donec et mollis
>   dolor. Praesent et diam eget
>   libero egestas mattis sit amet
>   vitae augue. Nam tincidunt congue
>   enim, ut porta lorem lacinia
>   consectetur.
> 
>   Snowdrift.coop
> We support the digital commons
> 
> Note the difference between the catchy header at the top, and the
> slogan, which is attached to our name. I think, in this example, this
> is definitely how we'd want things laid out. If we take the catchy
> phrase and make it the slogan, we have to reach for something else,
> something inferior, to use as the header!
> 
> Similarly for a t-shirt, with both phrases occurring but in their
> appropriate positions:
> 
> 
>FRONT
> 
>Help Free the Commons!
>   
> 
> 
>BACK
> 
>  Snowdrift.coop
>We support the digital commons
> 
> 
> Now, try putting "Help free the commons" in the slogan's context. It
> just wouldn't work. To me, that makes it very clear which one is the
> slogan, and which one is something else. Basically, I think anywhere
> we think to put our logo is a place we could also put the phrase "We
> support the digital commons". That, coupled with the fact that it
> accurately and concisely describes the project, is what makes it a
> good slogan.
> 
> As a final remark, I want to point out that nothing would stop us from
> having e.g. multiple buttons, each with different phrases. We can have
> more than one slogan or catchphrase. :) But if we're going to pick
> just one that will most commonly be paired with our name and logo, I
> think we should pick "We support the digital commons".
> 
> Coming up, I want to talk about why we might want a *second* slogan,
> one that actually uses the terms "FLO" or "Free" or "Libre". I'll get
> to it later, in a couple days maybe.
> 

Thanks Bryan!

To add to the running stuff and build on my points ("Digital Commons" is
unfortunately trademarked, not sure if that's fatal here, also it makes
it *harder* to play on the physical metaphor…), your suggestion (thanks
for going through it so well), could be modified to just:

"We support the commons"

or "support the commons" even.

However, I don't think either of those works as well as "we support the
digital commons" because they sound too vague and uninspiring.

I don't particular dislike "we support the commons" but my favorite now
remains "free the commons!" without any other qualifiers or "support" or
"help" bits. I can see business cards and shirts and more that just say
"Snowdrift.coop — free the commons!" essentially. And the header in your
example could be "support the digital commons!" or "help support the
digital commons!" or "Help support free/libre/open works!" I think those
work well as separate non-slogan headers…

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Arc Riley 
+1 to Stephens suggestions and comments on "free software" vs "software
freedom"

On 18 Sep 2015 01:22, "Stephen Michel"  wrote:
>
> At the risk of turning this into another discussion of free vs libre vs
open, I'll also throw out there that I personally try to avoid using the
term "free software" when I'm advocating, because people who aren't already
familiar with the movement hear those two words, come to an immediate
conclusion that you mean gratis, and will not be convinced otherwise
(they'll say they understand, and then a week later will make a comment
that shows complete lack of understanding). Instead, I prefer "Software
Freedom" -- it's immediately clear what I'm talking about, most people
haven't heard of it before, and are actually interested in hearing me
explain more. One additional note to be clear: this isn't about "X word has
become perverted by other groups, so we shouldn't use it any more," it's
about "x word was never very good at explaining what we're all about in the
first place, Z does it much better." Of course, the problem with 'freedom'
is that it often leads to awkward wordings, which is why I love 'FLO' for
when brevity is paramount.
>
> Back on topic: we could use something like "Funding a culture of
Freedom," (though that isn't as direct) or "Funding Freedom Culture"
(though that's awkwardly phrased). "Clearing freedom's path," (short)
"Clearing the path for a culture of freedom," (long) or a similar,
medium-length slogan could work, too.
>
> I also like "together" over "we." I think "we" is catchier, but to our
detriment -- it feels too corporate, where 'together' feels more genuine
and grassroots.
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Bryan Richter 
I am writing a lengthier missive on this topic, but I wanted to
briefly summarize my point of view. After much deliberation I have
come to agree with most of Robert's points. Right now my top choice is
"We support the digital commons".

Well, ok, I'll make this one a little longer right now. There are a
couple things I think we need to address explicitly that have gotten
only passing mention so far: Who is the audience, and what is the
context for the message?

It seems quite clear that the audience is the general public, and I
think it should be. That means FLO is out. Libre is out. Free is out.
Open is meh. "The commons", on the other hand, is a well-established
noun (late 14th century, according to etymonline.com) that means
exactly what we want. "The digital commons" is the perfect narrowing
of focus that reflects who we are. (Sorry, Robert, it definitely needs
"the" to be proper English.) "Support" is the most concise word to
describe our mission, a point I will expand on in my next email. It
also has a delightful double meaning that is so en vogue for slogans:
It evokes both a statement of solidarity ("We support workers'
rights...") as well as hinting at what we actually do.

Now, what is the context? I think the context is "a phrase we can put
next to our logo, wherever we deign to put our logo". I can think of
two concrete examples that demonstrate it: a t-shirt and a flyer.
Let's start with the flyer:


Help Free The Commons!

  We at Snowdrift.coop lorem ipsum
  dolor sit amet, consectetur
  adipiscing elit. Donec a diam
  lectus. Sed sit amet ipsum
  mauris.  Maecenas congue ligula
  ac quam viverra nec consectetur
  ante hendrerit. Donec et mollis
  dolor. Praesent et diam eget
  libero egestas mattis sit amet
  vitae augue. Nam tincidunt congue
  enim, ut porta lorem lacinia
  consectetur.

  Snowdrift.coop
We support the digital commons

Note the difference between the catchy header at the top, and the
slogan, which is attached to our name. I think, in this example, this
is definitely how we'd want things laid out. If we take the catchy
phrase and make it the slogan, we have to reach for something else,
something inferior, to use as the header!

Similarly for a t-shirt, with both phrases occurring but in their
appropriate positions:


   FRONT

   Help Free the Commons!
  


   BACK

 Snowdrift.coop
   We support the digital commons


Now, try putting "Help free the commons" in the slogan's context. It
just wouldn't work. To me, that makes it very clear which one is the
slogan, and which one is something else. Basically, I think anywhere
we think to put our logo is a place we could also put the phrase "We
support the digital commons". That, coupled with the fact that it
accurately and concisely describes the project, is what makes it a
good slogan.

As a final remark, I want to point out that nothing would stop us from
having e.g. multiple buttons, each with different phrases. We can have
more than one slogan or catchphrase. :) But if we're going to pick
just one that will most commonly be paired with our name and logo, I
think we should pick "We support the digital commons".

Coming up, I want to talk about why we might want a *second* slogan,
one that actually uses the terms "FLO" or "Free" or "Libre". I'll get
to it later, in a couple days maybe.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Aaron Wolf 


On 09/21/2015 10:41 AM, mray wrote:
> 
> On 21.09.2015 05:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> My vote now:  ***Help Free the Commons***
> 
> Staring with "help" sounds desperate.
> It also is very vague. Help in what way?
> 
> Helping to free something also sounds like it isn't free, but you set it
> free. We are not doing this. We try to make people create things that
> will be free right from the start.

We *are* planning later to offer to projects that are proprietary that
they can work with us to get FLO and will be allowed as soon as they are
FLO. We are *absolutely* about freeing things that aren't free, but
abstractly: as in "free the technology, free the music, free the
science, free the journalism" and we're doing that by helping projects
that are already free, hoping to move more of our resources away from
the non-free things, and entice more projects to be free. We're are
*not* saying "oh, incidentally, if you make something FLO, we'd like to
help fund you." We are being bold and saying "you *should* make things
FLO, and the reason we want to fund FLO things is so that we have FLO
phones and FLO culture etc, and you *should* free your project, and
we'll actively advocate for that and help you and provide a way to
support your project once freed."

> 
> One can also interpret the slogan in different ways like:
> 
> "Help us to free the commons."
> "We are the help that frees the commons."
> 

Both of those interpretations are fine. But I think we also are missing
some thread given delays in this email list. I proposed just "free the
commons" without the "help" see my other reply.

> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Aaron Wolf 


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…

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Aaron Wolf 


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 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Stephen Michel 
For some reason there's a little bit missing from my past email. Here's 
the last bit:


- 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?

~Stephen

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Stephen Michel 
 wrote:



On September 20, 2015 4:12:03 PM EDT, David Thomas 
 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 suspect this might be outside the scope of this discussion and 
deserve its own email thread, but I'll include it anyway and start a 
new thread depending on consensus.


What if www.snowdrift.coop *were* purely a fundraising platform for 
FLO works?


Okay, that was my clickbait to keep you hooked, but 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,


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.



On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM, 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.




 ...




 Let me be completely clear: the *only* reason I think it's okay 
at

all

 to consider a sl

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread mray 

On 21.09.2015 05:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> My vote now:  ***Help Free the Commons***

Staring with "help" sounds desperate.
It also is very vague. Help in what way?

Helping to free something also sounds like it isn't free, but you set it
free. We are not doing this. We try to make people create things that
will be free right from the start.

One can also interpret the slogan in different ways like:

"Help us to free the commons."
"We are the help that frees the commons."



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread mray 


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.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread Chris Sakkas 
Hi folks,

Been following along with interest.

I find "digital commons" a bit obscure, and not evocative of free culture
or even FLOSS. (And is culture digital, just because the files are stored
on computers?)

I think "funding free culture—together" works well. (I may be biased as
I've been using #FundFreeCulture as a Twitter hashtag for some time now).

Otherwise, I think "shareable" is good, but perhaps not with "commons",
since that seems like a tautology.

--

Thinking about some other slogans, perhaps we're being too didactic? Most
slogans don't seem to be used to explain the goods/services that they're
advertising, but just to evoke a particular sentiment or emotion. Maybe
just a line about freedom, or sharing, or cooperation would actually serve
well as a slogan.

But then, people "get" KFC or Pepsi much more intuitively than they do
snowdrift.coop.

Just some thoughts from an interested observer,
Chris


*Chris Sakkas**Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki
 and the Living Libre blog
 and Twitter feed
.*
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

2015-09-21 Thread David Thomas 
I recall us once deciding to distinguish between "Snowdrift" the tech
we've built, and "Snowdrift.coop" the site and organization.  This is
possibly relevant, as "Snowdrift" (the tech) could well be adapted to
parks and such if someone starts an org for it and forks our code.  If
that happens down the line, then work done now may be helping fund a
broader swath of "the commons" than just the digital.

---

I very much agree that free-as-verb is substantially clearer than
"free-as-adjective".

---

I like "Help ... The Commons", with either "Fund" or "Free".  We might
also consider "Grow" or "Build", with or without "Help".

---

One more brainstormy idea to drop: what about playing off of "Tragedy
Of The Commons" somehow?  Again, don't like any of these, but
exploring the theme:

"Comedy Of The Commons"
"Exaltation Of The Commons"
"Un-tragedy The Commons"

... yeah, there might be something there, but probably not as a main slogan...
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss