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
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 'he
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..."
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 f
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 freedo
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,
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
