On 11/04/2015 05:20 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > How do we feel about "co-patron"? > > In the latest project page mockup, 'co-donor' works very well, in my > opinion. > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export37/project.png > > I think it gets across pretty much everything we want. The only downside > I see is its 3-syllable length. > For better or for worse, there's also some wordplay around the start of > the word sounding like "copay." >
I get the idea behind "co-donor" and "co-patron" but I don't like them as fixed terms for one person's status. I could see each patron being called a "patron" but references to the groups of patrons could be "co-patrons", as in, "you are now a patron of Inkscape, one of 1,231 co-patrons". That's my initial inclination anyway. Also, while I'm not immediately comfortable with "co-", I definitely like "co-patron" more than "co-donor", as "patron" has good reasons we picked it as the best term: "patron" implies general ongoing support, providing a living for those working on something; whereas "donor" has a one-time feel associated strongly with the money transaction rather than the honorable position of patron in the overall community. Even in a regular for-profit business, calling people "patrons" sounds like they have a particular place in a relationship, and it's much more respectable and human than "buyers". Finally, "co-donor" has an uncomfortable string of o's that I happen to not like and slurs into sounding like "code owners" when spoken. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
