Not currently, but it's on the roadmap. In the meantime, it seems unlikely that
we'll run anywhere near that, as we'd need 10,000 patrons to reach that level.
If we do start seeing a massive influx of patrons, we'll prioritize that
feature, but right now the crowdmatch level is sitting at $0.08,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Alyssa Rosenzweig
wrote:
Marten's pitch was to get donation links included into package
managers,
which is a notable innovation I see in TrinkGeld, regardless of
whether it
has other issues.
As in
$ apt donate inkscape "$50"
or
$ apt install ink
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Stephen Michel
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Alyssa Rosenzweig
wrote:
Marten's pitch was to get donation links included into package
managers,
which is a notable innovation I see in TrinkGeld, regardless of
whether it
has other issues.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 09/06/2017 07:10 AM, David Seaward wrote:
Hi all,
Saw this still-very-early-days proposal at
https://www.joaquimrocha.com/2017/09/05/paying-for-foss-apps/
"TrinkGeld is a proposal for a GNOME project (but should be usable
in
most fr
On July 10, 2017 4:53:25 PM EDT, fr33domlover wrote:
>I'm bringing this up especially because right now Snowdrift is using
>Stripe's
>proprietary JS, which will surely raise eyebrows sooner or later, and
>regardless of that, I suppose we need this PCI thing. Anyone has
>thoughts about
>it?
It'l
On April 10, 2017 5:03:26 PM EDT, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Aaron Wolf
>wrote:
>> On 12/18/2016 01:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2016 10:23 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 12/09/2016 10:00 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> p.s. the job is with Formal.tech, a
On March 7, 2017 1:39:40 PM EST, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>On 03/07/2017 10:25 AM, Tufts wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Aaron Wolf
>wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2017 09:06 AM, Tufts wrote:
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see how this works out. --
>>> Forwarded message -- F
Good catch; I just read the local time and went with that but they are indeed
inconsistent. I'll be online shortly and around for most of them, I think.
On December 23, 2016 7:14:50 AM EST, Jason Harrer
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Would anyone be able to meet tomorrow morning at 10am PT, noon ET,
>> 13:00
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:43 PM, William Hale
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:10:23 -0500
Stephen Michel wrote:
This is the spiritual successor to Bryan's "Snowdrift.coop's
immediate goals" (quoted below), but is a bit broader in scope, so
I'm starting a new th
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Stephen Michel
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Bryan Richter
wrote:
Now that the reboot of the site is operational, I think it's time to
start at the top and work our way down to our next immediate goals.
Well, I'll skip ahead a bit, becau
This is the spiritual successor to Bryan's "Snowdrift.coop's immediate
goals" (quoted below), but is a bit broader in scope, so I'm starting a
new thread.
The questions he outlines in that thread apply to more than us. They're
the most important questions that *any* project that wishes to use
Hi Rosario,
Thank you for caring enough to write in. I volunteered a bunch of time
(mostly this past spring) doing project management and design; I'm
currently slightly out of the loop (the semester is in full swing).
That is to say, Aaron is much closer to the project than I am. I just
want
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bryan Richter
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:46:10PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
First, the premise: As a financial system trying to get people
focused
on how public goods actually work and are actually funded, we don't
want fees hidden and absorbed. W
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
On 09/20/2016 08:40 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 09/20/2016 01:04 AM, mray wrote:
On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
What about dropping "fund"? "Crowdmatching for public goods"
What about dropping "for"?
"Crowdmatching for public
I agree. 2017 at the earliest. I set myself a reminder to look into this on
January 1st.
On August 31, 2016 9:04:49 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>https://about.gitlab.com/2016/08/22/announcing-the-gitlab-issue-board
>
>https://git.snowdrift.coop/sd/snowdrift/board
>
>I don't have time to have an
On August 31, 2016 6:38:46 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:03:38AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>> On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray wrote:
>> >
>> >On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >> On 08/10/2016 01:27 A
On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray wrote:
>
>
>On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/10/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that
On August 9, 2016 4:55:17 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 02:43 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>
Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
charge
if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
-snip-
Though I don't think it's the best, I'm satisfied with this plan for
MVP.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Paraphrasing all my quotes because context is way too long already.
mray said:
Having a rollover cause unmatching is an extreme edge case
If that's true, going over your limit from a rollover is an extreme
edge case, too.
I think this is an edge case, but not an extreme one. If my limit is
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
regardless of rollover mechanism.
What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the
minimum
credit card
Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
regardless of rollover mechanism.
What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the minimum
credit card charge?
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
h
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 08/02/2016 06:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
I think the cleanest initial way to go is "No more than $limit will
be
added to your outstanding balance each month." That is, carried over
matches should *not* be counted towards yo
I have thoughts now!
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/02/2016 05:05 PM, mray wrote:
During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit
works.
I just want to voice my opinion on how the limit should work:
I strongly believe we should make the limit sac
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/02/2016 05:58 PM, James Sheldon wrote:
When are transaction fees charged? When you add money or when it is
assigned to a project?
This is assuming a charge-in-arrears approach where we avoid holding
money which has all sorts of legal
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, mray wrote:
During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit
works.
I just want to voice my opinion on how the limit should work:
I strongly believe we should make the limit sacrosanct and not touch
it
*never ever*. A decision by the user to se
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
On 06/04/2016 06:56 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
On June 4, 2016 5:21:31 AM EDT, mray wrote:
On 04.06.2016 08:35, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
Bryan Richter skreiv 04. juni 2016 03:47:
There are two situations where I'm not sure
On June 4, 2016 5:21:31 AM EDT, mray wrote:
>
>
>On 04.06.2016 08:35, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
>> Bryan Richter skreiv 04. juni 2016 03:47:
>>> There are two situations where I'm not sure what the best action is.
>>
>> IMO, the best solution (in both cases) is to *not* reveal that the
>use
>>
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Bryan Richter
wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:22:46PM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
On 05/18/2016 05:51 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:13:34PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:21:23AM -0700, Bryan Richt
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Bryan Richter
wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:16:09AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 05/17/2016 10:21 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> Website work is blocked on taking care of the blog, so let's do
that.
> We have to make some decisions, but first we need to agre
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Peter Harpending
wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 03:48:54PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
To me, it seems like arrears is the clear superior option for MVP.
Holding
funds adds significant legal complexity for what seems like a small
benefit
-- and it&#
To me, it seems like arrears is the clear superior option for MVP.
Holding funds adds significant legal complexity for what seems like a
small benefit -- and it's something that we could transition to later
anyway.
Imagine we're doing arrears, because that's the easier way. Then,
because we t
Sorry, list; that was intended to be an individual email to mray.
On May 13, 2016 8:40:17 PM EDT, Stephen Michel wrote:
>Was yesterday a good Thursday or a bad Thursday?
>
>Very belated: I do have a pgp key, but I receive very little encrypted
>mail, so my email setup is not o
642D CB46 D472 8806 1B9B
7F35 6FC6 59B5 2A14 5DE3
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:34 AM, mray wrote:
On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
...please email me your general availability.
Hello Stephen,
I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and
about every
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
On 05/01/2016 10:11 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
So, I learned from in research in traditional fundraising this
interesting bit:
This pertains to fundraisers wanting to get people to sign up as
ongoing
members where they donate monthly or annu
On May 2, 2016 12:11:46 AM EDT, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>Incidentally, besides hearing thoughts from others, I'm not clear in
>our
>new project management where is the best place to write down this idea
>so that it gets discussed and can then be something our research and
>design folks can consider and
To the discuss list and anyone reading this in the archive: this is
cross-posted to the other lists.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Stephen Michel
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Peter Harpending
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 06:48:58PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
Attached is
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
Here's the best resource
for good submissions:
https://www.harihareswara.net/sumana/2016/03/29/0
I went to the author's "Inessential Weirdnesses in ~~Open Source~~ Free
Software" talk at LibrePlanet this year; it was the best of the
confe
Reference:
NNTR = No need to reply
EOM = end of message
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Peter Harpending
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 06:48:58PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
Attached is a little diagram of how I think of the mailing list
membership.
I don't believe there's anything official about how they're set up,
bu
I'm doing a new thing this week! If you don't want to have to worry
about messing up time zones, just import the attached ICS files. That
doesn't mean skip the rest of this email because there's info about the
meetings in here too.
1. Weekly tactical meeting, on Monday. In the meeting, we'll b
It will be at meet.jit.si/snowdrift
As a reminder, a governance meeting is about modifying our own organizational
structure. If you have an issue like "I don't know who should be doing X", this
is the right place to bring it up.
wolftune, chreekat, Salt, ikomi, mray, msiep, please let me know
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 03/21/2016 08:45 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
There's still one unanswered question: OpenProject has a nice way to
organize meetings and record minutes. What do we replace that with?
Here's the criteria I'm working off o
Important note: for folks outside the US, you may not have passed
daylight savings yet, so this time may be offset 1 hour. It'll be back
to normal next week.
We're switching away from OpenProject, so no link this week. See the
long "state of project management" email for discussion about meeti
It's the end of an era.
For a long time, we used Snow wiki, the Snowdrift wiki and ticketing
system that is on our live site. Snow wiki has a problem: its code base
is a mess, tangled in with the rest of the Snowdrift code. When we
launch our MVP, we'll be running on a new code base. That mean
The initial work of clarifying our roles according to Holacracy is
done. From now on, we'll modify those roles through the normal
governance process. The goal here was not to make major changes, only
to make our written structure actually reflect our actual structure --
and then continually mod
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 03/16/2016 10:39 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
The initial work of clarifying our roles according to Holacracy is
done.
From now on, we'll modify those roles through the normal governance
process. The goal here was not to make major ch
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 03/14/2016 11:49 AM, Mica Semrick wrote:
Hi Bryan,
I will be doing some work on these! Unfortunately my schedule does
not
permit me to attend any meetings, so these types of mails are very
useful to me.
I'd like to touch base with
Quick reminder: the governance meeting starts in 90 minutes; the
tactical meeting starts in 3.5 hours.
I made a mistake when I first set up the meetings in OpenProject and
they had the wrong dates! This has been corrected now.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Michel
wrote:
There
There are two meetings planned for tomorrow/today, depending on when
you read this:
1. A governance meeting from 17:00-18:45 UTC, to finish ironing out our
work structure. http://shovel.snowdrift.coop/meetings/30
2. Our first official tactical meeting, from 19:00-20:00 UTC (the usual
time). ht
We made a lot of good progress clarifying roles on Monday. We still
have a bit more work to do, so I'm going to schedule a meeting.
Finding a good time for everyone is hard. It would be easier if we had
a listing of everyone's availability so we could just pick a time that
works in general (or
Holacracy has Governance meetings and Tactical meetings, but they also
assume that all of an organization's partners (employees / volunteers)
are physically in the same space, talking to one another as needed to
get input. I think we need an equivalent. I'm going to call them
"discussions" -- i
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 03/06/2016 06:25 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
That's today/tomorrow, depending on when you read this. We will:
- Implement the core of Holacracy
- Discuss which parts of Holacracy we shouldn't implement and any
additional polic
That's today/tomorrow, depending on when you read this. We will:
- Implement the core of Holacracy
- Discuss which parts of Holacracy we shouldn't implement and any
additional policies we may want.
To ensure we have time, there are 3 hours blocked out. Stop by for
however long you can afford
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Charles Wyble
wrote:
>> Implementing it here at Snowdrift.coop has been on the to-do list
for a while,
It has? Where is this TODO list that this item is on?
AFAIK, the todo list in Aaron's head. On the slim chance my memory from
when I was first reading abo
Holacracy is an alternative organizational system to a traditional
management hierarchy. Implementing it here at Snowdrift.coop has been
on the to-do list for a while, and now that we're finally getting
organized about how we're doing things, it's happening! I'm currently
taking the lead on it
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Charles Wyble
wrote:
In redmine I'm something of a sub project fiend. They are incredibly
useful.
Like anything, they can be overused/abused.
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Wolf [mailto:aa...@snowdrift.coop]
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:55 PM
To: d
I'm going to try a new thing here. Instead of cramming details into
this email -- time, topics, thoughts -- I am only going to share the
shortest-form highlights I can, and a link to the meeting's page in
OpenProject where you can read more (if more exists), add topics to the
agenda yourself, e
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:18 AM, char...@thefnf.org wrote:
Before you dive into process for process sake and die a death of a
thousand cuts by the toolchain...
I'm seeing lots of massive brain dumps, grandiose plans, long lists.
That's a huge amount of information. You'll die from analysis
par
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bryan Richter
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 04:25:08PM -0500, Stephen Michel wrote:
Pre-Alpha (name?): complete site except funding mechanism, where
hitting the 'pledge' button signs you up for the 'announce' email
list.
- Prima
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Bryan Richter
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 03:15:38PM -0800, Stephen Yeung wrote:
Regarding Milestones they're generally meant for big events (i.e.
launches or when you complete a suite of inter-related features)
wherein you take stock and review work and
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
Hi all,
I wrote a blog post with content that *some* will find quite
interesting
but is largely a nuanced, apologetic commentary addended to what is
really a short and simple news announcement:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/blog/osi-par
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:54:49AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:36 AM, mray wrote:
Here is my general rationale: The idea of Snowdrift is that it
has its own pace to up the game of donation
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 10/21/2015 08:54 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
I may agree with you; I haven't quite decided yet. I'm going to
continue
to argue until I'm convinced one way or the other.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:36 AM, mray wrote:
I may agree with you; I haven't quite decided yet. I'm going to
continue to argue until I'm convinced one way or the other.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:36 AM, mray wrote:
On 20.10.2015 19:09, Stephen Michel wrote:
!IMPORTANT!
First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 10/20/2015 10:09 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
!IMPORTANT!
First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline of next MONDAY,
OCT 26
for the mechanism. After that date, the design shall be locked in.
I agree with all these items
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:37:10PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jason Harrer
wrote:
If we keep changing everything and second guessing and changing
everything, we're never goi
!IMPORTANT!
First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline of next MONDAY, OCT 26
for the mechanism. After that date, the design shall be locked in.
---
Second: I'm going to re-pitch my proposal:
I hold these to be self-evident. If you agree with me, I don't see what
your objection might b
To keep the number of emails manageable and whatnot, please move all
conversation about deadlines and such to this new(!) wiki page & its
discussion section:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/beta-sprint
Cheers,
S
___
Discuss mailing list
Discu
If the volume of emails today has been overwhelming, don't worry about
reading it all.
I am going to make a summary of the important points from each thread,
some time in the next few days.
Cheers,
Stephen
To avoid further volume, please do not reply to this message.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 10/19/2015 03:47 PM, mray wrote:
On 20.10.2015 00:36, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote:
On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 10/19/2
While we're going meta...
One thing that stands out to me is that this whole discussion is
predicated upon the assumption that these 3 classes must exist. I
haven't spent enough time reading the bylaws, etc, to determine if this
assumption is valid; I just wanted to make it explicit.
I will
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jason Harrer
wrote:
If we keep changing everything and second guessing and changing
everything, we're never going to launch.
This is a really good point. How do people feel about setting up
sprints / (in)formal deadlines for feature discussion? Or just some
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 10/19/2015 11:44 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial
thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical
potential
patrons.
1)It will make the average person ner
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Jonathan Roberts
wrote:
These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial
thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical potential
patrons.
1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
representation of w
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jonathan Roberts
wrote:
I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every
other discussion board ever for
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Roberts
wrote:
Brian,
Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is
definitely off the table.
Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to
g
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the
mechanism;
we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
above-minimum levels.
We should do this by keepi
In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
above-minimum levels.
We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will tend
to stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended
ple
What if we simply removed the punctuation entirely?
Of course we'd add back in the appropriate punctuation where it's
needed but for a place like directly under our name on the home page,
I'm not sure it's needed.
~Stephen
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:56 PM, mray wrote:
On 30.09.2015 20:30, B
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 09/23/2015 03:34 PM, mray wrote:
On 23.09.2015 23:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
Either you are all
good or you lack funds and don't count. And if you have left-over
inadequate funds, you can either adjust things to be good again,
or you
ement. So, I'll try to do
that (and a little clarification) now.
On 09/22/2015 11:23 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
_This email has two things:_
1. Statement of our goals relating to the defunding mechanism, so we
have an agreed-upon base to have a discussion from.
2. Proposal for simp
This email has two things:
1. Statement of our goals relating to the defunding mechanism, so we
have an agreed-upon base to have a discussion from.
2. Proposal for simplified mechanism to accomplish those goals.
1. Goals of a defunding mechanism:
- Encourage users to deposit more funds in the
p 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
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
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 conc
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,
89 matches
Mail list logo
