I'm with Aaron here. Addressing over-funded projects should not be
even a medium-term thing (unless it looks likely we'll have some
sooner).
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Stephen Michel
wrote:
> Good catch; I just read the local time and went with that but they are
> indeed inconsistent. I'll
What about dropping "fund"? "Crowdmatching for public goods"
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 09/19/2016 04:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> On 09/19/2016 01:57 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> "Free the Commons" is a nice, short, relevant slogan. It's a call-to-action.
>>>
>>>
> It wouldn't make sense to be able to claim but be unable to undo your claim.
There are contexts where that could make sense - if you want to say
"on claiming, it's your responsibility to deal with the issue or find
someone to take it from you." But I think I agree it's not
appropriate to this c
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
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
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,
