Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Bryan Richter]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:35:25PM +0200, mray wrote:
> 
> On 21.09.2015 19:48, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> > 
> > 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…
> > 
> 
> Instant like. This looks really good to me.

Works for me, too!


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

[mray]

On 21.09.2015 19:48, 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.
> 

I think "help" in any combination has too strong ties to bad
associations. If we can, we should avoid it. Help is where suffering and
distress are. Help is what everybody asks for and you're morally obliged
to give, but you don't. I think we don't want to go there with our slogan.

> 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…
> 

Instant like. This looks really good to me.
Why didn't you suggest so right from the start! :D
In a way it even fits our shovel+snow theme.

Some parts are obviously not represented, but it compresses our whole
issue down to a catchy phrase.

I also like how it is a bit bold, like it is the calm answer to the
furious question "look what is happening in our culture! what could
possibly be done about that?"

And it is short.



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

[mray]

On 21.09.2015 22:09, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 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."

The point is: that is not our main goal at all.
We certainly don't refrain from converting people! We also do not in any
way depend on having non-free stuff that we can grab and set free.



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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/20/2015 02:02 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 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 w

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[David Thomas]

I think some market research could be a great thing.  I have some
contacts in that field - I'll see if I can scare up some volunteer
effort from someone who knows what they're doing.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Stephen Michel
 wrote:
> 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 
> 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 

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Stephen Michel]

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 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?

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? 

>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 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
 ma

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Stephen Michel]

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  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 th

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[David Thomas]

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...

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".

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 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,

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[mray]

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 

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/19/2015 05:09 AM, mray wrote:
> 
> On 18.09.2015 19:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>> Robert, I basically agree with all your critiques of the current slogan,
>> and the clunkiness of ", together" although it's still clear that "we"
>> doesn't jump out as a welcome inclusiveness. In fact, I think it's weak
>> enough that it's better to go with concise and eliminate "we" rather
>> than have it.
>>
> 
> So you agree we need another slogan?
> 

No, I think "need" another slogan is too strong. It's not a blocker at
the level of make-or-break or that the current slogan is fundamentally
unworkable or negative.

I would agree that a better slogan would be *nice*, and that if we were
to agree on one, it makes sense to do it in conjunction with printing
stickers and shirts.

> @"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 main complaint I have about your proposals and suggestions is that
>> you spend most of your time saying "these are the qualities we want"
>> (which I agree with) and "this is how the current slogan falls short"
>> (which I agree with), but you're not adequately addressing the *serious*
>> flaws with the word "free" (which are still somewhat present in the
>> phrase "free culture").
>>
>> It generally feels like you say "the current slogan is not good,
>> therefore this other one is good" without actually addressing the
>> concerns about the new proposal. "Free" on its own is so bad for various
>> reasons (jingoism and confusion about gratis) that I and others have
>> been arguing that it is *worse* than the admittedly clunky and not great
>> "free*libre*open".
> 
> I was responding to the (rightful) challenge to explain why a new slogan
> is necessary. *If* we can agree that there needs to be a new slogan
> there is no need to point out the flaws repeatedly.
> 
> I did address "free" in my previous mail:
> - "free" admittedly is not perfect (like its alternatives!)
> - "free" is closest to "freedom"
> - "free" changes associations next to "fund" and "culture"
> - "free" generally has a *very* positive connotation
> - "free" is short.
> 
> btw, I second Bryans note that we should not shy away from "free"
> because others use it in other contexts.
> 

The way that "free" is different next to "culture" and "fund" is still
inadequate. In my experience with non-insiders, "open" is orders of
magnitude more likely to bring people to think about what we mean than
any context with just "free". No matter what we do, the association of
"free" with no-charge is completely overwhelming, far far beyond the
issue of "a few others use it in a context we don't like".

"shareable" is a better example of a word that still mostly means what
we want it to mean but where "others use it in other contexts". I.e.
Bryan's note that you agree with is a reasonable defense of using
"shareable", i.e. "Shareable is still a good word, despite our dislike
of the way some people use it." "Free" has problems that are much deeper
than that.

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.

>>
>> I don't think anyone disagrees with your critiques of the current
>> slogan. The concern is about serious problems with the alternatives.
> 
> When we agree we need a new slogan, lets also agree that our ultimate
> concern is having a slogan that works where the old one didn't!
> Otherwise I don't see what we are trying to achieve here.
> 
> Despite its shortcomings I agree on using "free" here in the slogan
> because it is catchy

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Stephen Paul Weber]

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.


Yes, my favourite word for explanations is "freedom".  I do like "Funding a 
culture of freedom" -- maybe "Help us fund a culture of freedom".


I also like the words "libre" and "commons", though they are more "in-crowd" 
words than common words.


"free" and "open" (the two common words that are often used) are both too 
problematic (in ways that have been talked about here already) to be 
interesting to me.  Not that these words are dead, I just feel like the 
above are better.


The issue with the phrase "free culture" to those not in the "in-crowd" is 
that they (in my experience) often fail to understand the use of the word 
"culture", nevermind the word "free".  I agree it is less ambiguous once one 
has understood the word "culture", but that explanation takes time.


What about this proposal: "Commons funding commons" or "Common funding of 
the commons"

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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[mray]

On 18.09.2015 19:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> Robert, I basically agree with all your critiques of the current slogan,
> and the clunkiness of ", together" although it's still clear that "we"
> doesn't jump out as a welcome inclusiveness. In fact, I think it's weak
> enough that it's better to go with concise and eliminate "we" rather
> than have it.
> 

So you agree we need another slogan?

@"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.

> The main complaint I have about your proposals and suggestions is that
> you spend most of your time saying "these are the qualities we want"
> (which I agree with) and "this is how the current slogan falls short"
> (which I agree with), but you're not adequately addressing the *serious*
> flaws with the word "free" (which are still somewhat present in the
> phrase "free culture").
> 
> It generally feels like you say "the current slogan is not good,
> therefore this other one is good" without actually addressing the
> concerns about the new proposal. "Free" on its own is so bad for various
> reasons (jingoism and confusion about gratis) that I and others have
> been arguing that it is *worse* than the admittedly clunky and not great
> "free*libre*open".

I was responding to the (rightful) challenge to explain why a new slogan
is necessary. *If* we can agree that there needs to be a new slogan
there is no need to point out the flaws repeatedly.

I did address "free" in my previous mail:
- "free" admittedly is not perfect (like its alternatives!)
- "free" is closest to "freedom"
- "free" changes associations next to "fund" and "culture"
- "free" generally has a *very* positive connotation
- "free" is short.

btw, I second Bryans note that we should not shy away from "free"
because others use it in other contexts.

> 
> I don't think anyone disagrees with your critiques of the current
> slogan. The concern is about serious problems with the alternatives.

When we agree we need a new slogan, lets also agree that our ultimate
concern is having a slogan that works where the old one didn't!
Otherwise I don't see what we are trying to achieve here.

Despite its shortcomings I agree on using "free" here in the slogan
because it is catchy and sticks and works good enough - leaving
idealistic precision behind and accepting a *certain* degree of
fuzziness on purpose.

> 
> A concise option: "Funding the free*libre*open commons" — despite the
> clunkiness, there's value in embracing a *consistent* term across all
> our messaging.

There *is* a value in consistent terminology, but it does not trump the
need to have non-clunky slogan.

> 
> And for removing clunkiness and getting more brief: "Funding the free
> and open commons"

That's only a bit less clunky and 2 characters shorter.
Open commons sounds strange to me.

> 
> I don't love it but: "Funding the digital commons" is kinda ok. I really
> don't like the feel of the word "digital" though.

I like this, but I miss the "we".
Initially I had problems with "digital", too. But I come to the
conclusion that the reproduction of goods at no cost is essential to our
cause. It appears to be part of the deal by definition.

What about:
"we fund digital commons" ?



> 
> -Aaron
> 
> P.S.And while funding *is* the key feature, our vision is to have the
> best FLO commons and stop the amount of resources that get locked up in
> proprietary stuff. So, I happen to feel some sympathy toward not saying
> "funding" in the slogan because I'd rather we think of funding as a
> means to the end and focus on the end rather than the means, because it
> leaves us open to working on promoting FLO and volunteering alongside
> funding — but despite my sympathies in that way, I *do* buy the argument
> that focusing on funding makes more sense, so I'm okay with that. The
> term "free" is the one that has to be addressed because it is so bad in
> practice in reaching out to the general public.
> 






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

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/18/2015 03:19 AM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17.09.2015 18:55, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>
>> It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
>> heard.
> 
> My argument is that brevity, concision, simplicity and clarity are
> qualities to care about. I don't assume they guarantee a good slogan -
> but I think they indicate effectiveness. I might miss other qualities,
> but in my opinion colliding with those bears problems already.
> 
> "clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
> is quite long, clunky and hard to spontaneously recite (not brief)
> 
> "clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
> speaks in dilemma-themed metaphors (not concise)
> 
> "clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
> features a three-part word with two slashes and a non-english word (not
> simple)
> 
> "clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
> omits the financial a angle (not clear)
> 
> 
>> 
>>
>> Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of
>> discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does
>> not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe
>> including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the
>> following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, together".
>>
> 
> I'm still convinced "we" works fine.
> "We" can in fact be exclusive, too. But to some extend it is meant to
> be; without an account on our service you're hardly part of what we do.
> "We" reflects a good amount of needed tribe feeling.
> We don't want people to just do things, but to become part of something.
> A good example for the use of "together" instead of "we" might be:
> "let's end racism, together", since you can just do that without
> registering somewhere and transferring money.
> 
> Also ", together" isn't that short and comes with the extra comma snag.
> 
> 
> Robert
> 
> 

Robert, I basically agree with all your critiques of the current slogan,
and the clunkiness of ", together" although it's still clear that "we"
doesn't jump out as a welcome inclusiveness. In fact, I think it's weak
enough that it's better to go with concise and eliminate "we" rather
than have it.

The main complaint I have about your proposals and suggestions is that
you spend most of your time saying "these are the qualities we want"
(which I agree with) and "this is how the current slogan falls short"
(which I agree with), but you're not adequately addressing the *serious*
flaws with the word "free" (which are still somewhat present in the
phrase "free culture").

It generally feels like you say "the current slogan is not good,
therefore this other one is good" without actually addressing the
concerns about the new proposal. "Free" on its own is so bad for various
reasons (jingoism and confusion about gratis) that I and others have
been arguing that it is *worse* than the admittedly clunky and not great
"free*libre*open".

I don't think anyone disagrees with your critiques of the current
slogan. The concern is about serious problems with the alternatives.

A concise option: "Funding the free*libre*open commons" — despite the
clunkiness, there's value in embracing a *consistent* term across all
our messaging.

And for removing clunkiness and getting more brief: "Funding the free
and open commons"

I don't love it but: "Funding the digital commons" is kinda ok. I really
don't like the feel of the word "digital" though.

-Aaron

P.S.And while funding *is* the key feature, our vision is to have the
best FLO commons and stop the amount of resources that get locked up in
proprietary stuff. So, I happen to feel some sympathy toward not saying
"funding" in the slogan because I'd rather we think of funding as a
means to the end and focus on the end rather than the means, because it
leaves us open to working on promoting FLO and volunteering alongside
funding — but despite my sympathies in that way, I *do* buy the argument
that focusing on funding makes more sense, so I'm okay with that. The
term "free" is the one that has to be addressed because it is so bad in
practice in reaching out to the general public.

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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Bryan Richter]

Here's a brainstorm.

We fund
Funding
Towards
For
Supporting
We support
Patrons of
Creating
Realizing

Shared
Open
Free
Respectful
Communal
Natural
Human

Culture
Software
Works
Commons
Arts
Progress
Technology
Goods
Innovation


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

[mray]

On 17.09.2015 18:55, Bryan Richter wrote:
> 
> It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
> heard.

My argument is that brevity, concision, simplicity and clarity are
qualities to care about. I don't assume they guarantee a good slogan -
but I think they indicate effectiveness. I might miss other qualities,
but in my opinion colliding with those bears problems already.

"clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
is quite long, clunky and hard to spontaneously recite (not brief)

"clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
speaks in dilemma-themed metaphors (not concise)

"clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
features a three-part word with two slashes and a non-english word (not
simple)

"clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
omits the financial a angle (not clear)


> 
> 
> Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of
> discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does
> not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe
> including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the
> following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, together".
> 

I'm still convinced "we" works fine.
"We" can in fact be exclusive, too. But to some extend it is meant to
be; without an account on our service you're hardly part of what we do.
"We" reflects a good amount of needed tribe feeling.
We don't want people to just do things, but to become part of something.
A good example for the use of "together" instead of "we" might be:
"let's end racism, together", since you can just do that without
registering somewhere and transferring money.

Also ", together" isn't that short and comes with the extra comma snag.


Robert



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

[Stephen Michel]

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.


However, I'm still in favor of "WE FUND FREE CULTURE" over "clearing 
the path to a F/L/O world." It's much more skimmable, and in my 
opinion, more explanatory despite fewer words. If ALL I knew about 
snowdrift.coop was the slogan, I would not have a clear idea of what it 
is we do. So while the metaphor appeals to me and I definitely think we 
should include it elsewhere in the site, and our promotional materials, 
I don't think it should be our main slogan.


~Stephen

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:



On 09/17/2015 09:55 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, mray wrote:

 Hello everybody,

 So here is my candidate:


 "WE FUND FREE CULTURE."

 WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe 
including you

 FUND covers our financial angle
 FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
 CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support



 The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a
 free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the 
slogan. It's

 a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.


 It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
 heard.

 Here are some other thoughts of mine:

 In Aaron's response on the design list, he seems to imply that 
"open"

 is dead to us as a word to describe the kinds of works we want to
 support. I reject that claim. We don't *have* to use it, but I 
believe
 we *can* use it. Just because there is a thing called "open 
washing",

 and just because some close-minded people at an otherwise
 freedom-favoring organization have declared it anathema, doesn't 
mean

 it is now a meaningless word. If we want to give up every word that
 somebody makes a concerted effort to pervert, soon our language will
 consist of nothing but "buy now" and "Coke". I don't want the o-word
 to become like the n-word.

 On that note, (again referring to Aaron's other email), the fact 
that

 some dastardly folks have decided to pervert the term "free culture"
 to mean something that is absolutely nothing like its current 
meaning,

 doesn't mean we have to play along. Free culture, in my opinion, is
 the English phrase where "free" has the strongest connotation with
 "libre". Culture is already free-as-in-beer. I won't be bullied or
 brainwashed into thinking it is anything otherwise.

 Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of
 discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does
 not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe
 including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the
 following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, 
together".


 That's all I got. I'm interested to hear more thoughts.



I agree with "open" as an acceptable term, particularly in reference 
to

the strongest (and totally aligned with us and one of our accepted
definitions for projects) "Open Definition" 
http://opendefinition.org/od/


Furthermore, although we've gone with FLO overall and I really want
consistency in our messaging, "Free & Open" or "Free and Open" is
something that I think has strong merit in various cases.

I agree *completely* with the "together" versus the "we" issue. "We
fund…" definitely sounds like "we, the Snowdrift.coop folks" in a 
way

that does not at all come ac

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Stephen Michel]

I like it.

The only alternative I can think of is "WE FUND FLO CULTURE."

The downside compared to "free" is that people don't immediately know 
what it means.
The upside is it's more nuanced, and provides a nice jumping point into 
explaining what we mean by FLO.


I have no marketing expertise, and even if I did I'm not sure which I 
like more, so I'm just throwing this one out there for discussion.


~Stephen

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:50 PM, mray  wrote:

Hello everybody,


It is time to have a fruitful discussion about our slogan, we don't 
have

one - but we should. My current mock-ups just use "FUNDING A FREE
CULTURE" but that isn't anything that has been decided at all.
We are about to create promotional resources and eventually I'd like 
to

make use of a slogan. We need to settle this soon.

The properties I seek in a slogan are:
* brevity
* concision
* simplicity
* clarity

Concerning what the slogan could convey have a look at our mission:
  https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mission
or the slogan page:
  https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/slogan

So here is my candidate:


"WE FUND FREE CULTURE."

WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including 
you

FUND covers our financial angle
FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support


Thoughts? Comments? Alternatives?


Cheers,
Robert


___
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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

Copying my reply from the design list (this discussion does belong on
the general discuss list)

On 09/16/2015 03:54 AM, mray wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
>
> It is time to have a fruitful discussion about our slogan, we don't have
> one - but we should. My current mock-ups just use "FUNDING A FREE
> CULTURE" but that isn't anything that has been decided at all.
> We are about to create promotional resources and eventually I'd like to
> make use of a slogan. We need to settle this soon.
>
> The properties I seek in a slogan are:
> * brevity
> * concision
> * simplicity
> * clarity
>
> Concerning what the slogan could convey have a look at our mission:
>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mission
> or the slogan page:
>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/slogan
>
> So here is my candidate:
>
>
> "WE FUND FREE CULTURE."
>
> WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including you
> FUND covers our financial angle
> FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
> CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support
>
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Alternatives?
>

Obviously, it should be referenced that the current slogan on the site is:

"clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"

The "clear the path" indicates our snowdrift metaphor (otherwise, with
no cue at all, it's far too easy for people to think 'snowball' and
think the snow metaphor is about how all the little donations add up,
instead of the desired metaphor of a blocked path). This version of the
slogan is predicated on a position that there exists no acceptable
truncation of "free/libre/open".

Why "free" even in "free culture" is a problem: Free is 95% of the time
associated with price, whether we like it or not. In fact, there's a
whole initiative in Portland, OR where I live to fight back against
"free culture" — that exact phrase. It's headed by musicians who are
trying to push back against the trend of people downloading music at no
charge (which we support, but we want artists funded) and *also*
(importantly) against the trend of bars getting live musicians to play
for zero pay just for "exposure" and such. In other words, to them "free
culture" is the whole trend of people thinking they can get everything
at no charge. Now, their whole initiative is misguided, but I mention it
for reference.

Obviously, "funding a free culture" makes it clear that we *aren't*
working against artists being paid. But still.

"culture" on its own definitely makes a lot of people thing this is
about art and not about science, software, or technology. Of course, we
have a strong software audience, so having a lot of software present, we
will be clearly about software, so emphasizing the cultural side in the
slogan does help offset that.

I think if there's one word to be the best truncation it's actually
"open" except that is a no-go because (A) tons of open-washing makes it
almost meaningless today, and (B) this would draw the ire of the FSF
folks who oppose the replacement of "free" with "open".

In various contexts, such as "clearing the path to a free world", the
term "free" sounds jingoistic, as "the free world" is used to mean
America / U.S. versus the Soviety Union etc.

Although "creative commons" is taken, various forms of statements around
the term "commons" or maybe "public goods" make sense. It is a totally
accurate way to describe us to say "we fund the digital commons" or
something of that ilk.

Please, others on this list, perspective is useful. Please share your
thoughts.

Best,
Aaron

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Design mailing list
des...@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/17/2015 09:55 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, mray wrote:
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>> So here is my candidate:
>>>
>>>
>>> "WE FUND FREE CULTURE."
>>>
>>> WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including you
>>> FUND covers our financial angle
>>> FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
>>> CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support
>>>
>>
>> The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a
>> free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the slogan. It's
>> a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.
> 
> It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
> heard.
> 
> Here are some other thoughts of mine:
> 
> In Aaron's response on the design list, he seems to imply that "open"
> is dead to us as a word to describe the kinds of works we want to
> support. I reject that claim. We don't *have* to use it, but I believe
> we *can* use it. Just because there is a thing called "open washing",
> and just because some close-minded people at an otherwise
> freedom-favoring organization have declared it anathema, doesn't mean
> it is now a meaningless word. If we want to give up every word that
> somebody makes a concerted effort to pervert, soon our language will
> consist of nothing but "buy now" and "Coke". I don't want the o-word
> to become like the n-word.
> 
> On that note, (again referring to Aaron's other email), the fact that
> some dastardly folks have decided to pervert the term "free culture"
> to mean something that is absolutely nothing like its current meaning,
> doesn't mean we have to play along. Free culture, in my opinion, is
> the English phrase where "free" has the strongest connotation with
> "libre". Culture is already free-as-in-beer. I won't be bullied or
> brainwashed into thinking it is anything otherwise.
> 
> Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of
> discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does
> not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe
> including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the
> following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, together".
> 
> That's all I got. I'm interested to hear more thoughts.
> 

I agree with "open" as an acceptable term, particularly in reference to
the strongest (and totally aligned with us and one of our accepted
definitions for projects) "Open Definition" http://opendefinition.org/od/

Furthermore, although we've gone with FLO overall and I really want
consistency in our messaging, "Free & Open" or "Free and Open" is
something that I think has strong merit in various cases.

I agree *completely* with the "together" versus the "we" issue. "We
fund…" definitely sounds like "we, the Snowdrift.coop folks" in a way
that does not at all come across as inclusive. It's comparable to a
restaurant saying "we serve the finest wine" or whatever.

FWIW, the evolution of the current slogan was:

"Working together to clear the obstacles"
"Working together to clear the path"
"Clearing the path to a free, libre, open world"
"Clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"

I remain pretty strongly in favor of keeping the current slogan, but
would accept removing "libre" if it were insisted (but don't favor
that), and I'm perfectly fine with any alternatives to the punctuation,
including return to commas or using bullets or hyphens.

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

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Bryan Richter]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, mray wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > 
> > So here is my candidate:
> > 
> > 
> > "WE FUND FREE CULTURE."
> > 
> > WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including you
> > FUND covers our financial angle
> > FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
> > CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support
> > 
> 
> The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a
> free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the slogan. It's
> a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.

It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
heard.

Here are some other thoughts of mine:

In Aaron's response on the design list, he seems to imply that "open"
is dead to us as a word to describe the kinds of works we want to
support. I reject that claim. We don't *have* to use it, but I believe
we *can* use it. Just because there is a thing called "open washing",
and just because some close-minded people at an otherwise
freedom-favoring organization have declared it anathema, doesn't mean
it is now a meaningless word. If we want to give up every word that
somebody makes a concerted effort to pervert, soon our language will
consist of nothing but "buy now" and "Coke". I don't want the o-word
to become like the n-word.

On that note, (again referring to Aaron's other email), the fact that
some dastardly folks have decided to pervert the term "free culture"
to mean something that is absolutely nothing like its current meaning,
doesn't mean we have to play along. Free culture, in my opinion, is
the English phrase where "free" has the strongest connotation with
"libre". Culture is already free-as-in-beer. I won't be bullied or
brainwashed into thinking it is anything otherwise.

Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of
discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does
not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe
including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the
following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, together".

That's all I got. I'm interested to hear more thoughts.


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

[mray]

On 17.09.2015 06:13, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Copying my reply from the design list (this discussion does belong on
> the general discuss list)
> 
> On 09/16/2015 03:54 AM, mray wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>>
>> It is time to have a fruitful discussion about our slogan, we don't have
>> one - but we should. My current mock-ups just use "FUNDING A FREE
>> CULTURE" but that isn't anything that has been decided at all.
>> We are about to create promotional resources and eventually I'd like to
>> make use of a slogan. We need to settle this soon.
>>
>> The properties I seek in a slogan are:
>> * brevity
>> * concision
>> * simplicity
>> * clarity
>>
>> Concerning what the slogan could convey have a look at our mission:
>>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mission
>> or the slogan page:
>>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/slogan
>>
>> So here is my candidate:
>>
>>
>> "WE FUND FREE CULTURE."
>>
>> WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including you
>> FUND covers our financial angle
>> FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
>> CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support
>>
>>
>> Thoughts? Comments? Alternatives?
>>
> 
> Obviously, it should be referenced that the current slogan on the site is:
> 
> "clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
> 
> The "clear the path" indicates our snowdrift metaphor (otherwise, with
> no cue at all, it's far too easy for people to think 'snowball' and
> think the snow metaphor is about how all the little donations add up,
> instead of the desired metaphor of a blocked path). This version of the
> slogan is predicated on a position that there exists no acceptable
> truncation of "free/libre/open".
> 
> Why "free" even in "free culture" is a problem: Free is 95% of the time
> associated with price, whether we like it or not. In fact, there's a
> whole initiative in Portland, OR where I live to fight back against
> "free culture" — that exact phrase. It's headed by musicians who are
> trying to push back against the trend of people downloading music at no
> charge (which we support, but we want artists funded) and *also*
> (importantly) against the trend of bars getting live musicians to play
> for zero pay just for "exposure" and such. In other words, to them "free
> culture" is the whole trend of people thinking they can get everything
> at no charge. Now, their whole initiative is misguided, but I mention it
> for reference.
> 
> Obviously, "funding a free culture" makes it clear that we *aren't*
> working against artists being paid. But still.
> 
> "culture" on its own definitely makes a lot of people thing this is
> about art and not about science, software, or technology. Of course, we
> have a strong software audience, so having a lot of software present, we
> will be clearly about software, so emphasizing the cultural side in the
> slogan does help offset that.
> 
> I think if there's one word to be the best truncation it's actually
> "open" except that is a no-go because (A) tons of open-washing makes it
> almost meaningless today, and (B) this would draw the ire of the FSF
> folks who oppose the replacement of "free" with "open".
> 
> In various contexts, such as "clearing the path to a free world", the
> term "free" sounds jingoistic, as "the free world" is used to mean
> America / U.S. versus the Soviety Union etc.
> 
> Although "creative commons" is taken, various forms of statements around
> the term "commons" or maybe "public goods" make sense. It is a totally
> accurate way to describe us to say "we fund the digital commons" or
> something of that ilk.
> 
> Please, others on this list, perspective is useful. Please share your
> thoughts.
> 
> Best,
> Aaron
> 


You're right to point out that the project indeed is using a slogan.
Just to be clear though: you agree that a new one is needed, right?


@"clearing the path":
I see how this fits thematically, but it's clunky and has a dogmatic
connotation like "we know THE ONE right path." But the main issue I have
is: it *only* fits thematically.
It does not add relevant context by staying metaphorical and stating the
obvious (we remove what needs removing). It just underlines that there
is a theme but does not clarify that it is about that particular
dilemma, let alone what that type of dilemma actually is about.
Once you know all the context *already* - it makes sense. But that's
using the slogans purpose backwards.

@"free":
Given that we have to compromise either way I'm willing to accept clear
downsides. "We Fund free culture" still seems ok to me -even- when
"free" is broadly associated with "gratis".
As you point out the "funding" part of the slogan changes its meaning.
So does the word "culture". Using "free" as a property of the broad term
"culture" certainly amplifies the "freedom" aspect of "free".
Finally "free" comes with a good all the time.

Do I get this right that "we fund the digital commons" is your #1?

Removing the "the"

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Peter Harpending]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, mray wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> 
> It is time to have a fruitful discussion about our slogan, we don't have
> one - but we should. My current mock-ups just use "FUNDING A FREE
> CULTURE" but that isn't anything that has been decided at all.
> We are about to create promotional resources and eventually I'd like to
> make use of a slogan. We need to settle this soon.
> 
> The properties I seek in a slogan are:
> * brevity
> * concision
> * simplicity
> * clarity
> 
> Concerning what the slogan could convey have a look at our mission:
>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mission
> or the slogan page:
>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/slogan
> 
> So here is my candidate:
> 
> 
> "WE FUND FREE CULTURE."
> 
> WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including you
> FUND covers our financial angle
> FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
> CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support
> 
> 
> Thoughts? Comments? Alternatives?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Robert
> 
> 

The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a
free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the slogan. It's
a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.


pgpEfAh5rpBm6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss