On 02/01/2016 01:09 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: > On 02/01/2016 01:19 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >> >> On 01/29/2016 07:35 AM, Stephen Michel wrote: >> >>> On January 28, 2016 11:02:18 PM EST, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> >>> wrote: >>>> In the midst of all the SCaLE stuff, this thread got lost. Following up >>>> finally. >>>> >>>> On 01/08/2016 08:04 AM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>>> here are a few variations that occur to me: >>>>> >>>>> * Catalyze the commons. >>>>> * The commons catalyst. >>>>> * Catalyst for the commons. >>>>> * Catalyzing creation of public goods. >>>>> * Nourish the commons. >>>>> * Grow the commons. >>>>> * Nurturing a thriving commons. >>>> Although I appreciate all these thoughts, I prefer "free the commons" >>>> as >>>> far clearer. I understand these are just suggestions for prompting >>>> discussion. My feeling about "free the commons" is that there are >>>> things >>>> that have *fundamental* nature as commons / public and they are *in >>>> jail* in some sense. The feeling is: there's technology and science and >>>> knowledge that by nature are public commons and some actors have >>>> actively restricted them, so we are out to free them. >>>> >>>> Yes, we are focused on helping the things that are already free but >>>> need >>>> support. However, the mission is to *take away* the funding from Adobe >>>> Photoshop and give it to GIMP *or* convince Photoshop to become FLO >>>> commons. We don't *just* want GIMP to be better, we want to see the end >>>> to the proprietization of the otherwise-commons. And even if we shy >>>> away from being that bold in much of the messaging, that general call in >>>> that >>>> direction is good. >>> I don't think "Free the Commons" is the absolute best slogan we could have, >>> but given that we have already had this conversation and could not find a >>> better alternative, I think at the least we should not have this >>> conversation again until the alpha sprint is over. >> That works for me. Re Aaron's comments above, I can see how "Free the >> Commons" makes sense once fully explained. I just think it's far from >> self-explanatory or quick to grasp for a newcomer. One solution >> might, however, be to keep the slogan as "Free the Commons" but make >> sure all the other introductory material quickly gets newcomers to a >> point where "Free the Commons" makes sense to them. >> >>> >>>> <snip> >>>> I really like your suggestion: >>>> >>>> "We help people cooperate to sustainably fund projects that create >>>> shareable, freely-licensed public goods that benefit everyone." >>>> >>>> I almost went ahead and just updated the homepage. However, I kinda >>>> feel this has too many qualifiers still. Instead of an active word >>>> "cooperate" the main verb is "help" and it's "projects that create" >>>> instead of just goods themselves. And "shareable, freely-licensed" is a >>>> bit like extraneous definitions. >>>> >>>> But I'm not sure enough about my concerns to conclude much. So I want >>>> others to weigh in. >>>> >>>> The simplest, shortest wording would be: >>>> >>>> "We cooperate to sustainably fund public goods. Join us!" >>>> >>>> I'm not sure enough about that to propose it as the final solution, but >>>> if everyone likes it… >>> This is what's currently on the site: >>> >>> "Like roads we all share, freely-licensed works are public goods that >>> benefit everyone. So, we need to cooperate to sustainably fund them" >>> >>> I think the first sentence is very good at setting the tone and explaining >>> succinctly. The second, not so much. Perhaps just "We cooperate to >>> sustainably fund them." >> Although I agree the first sentence is generally very good, I find >> "Like roads we all share" a bit wordy and awkward to read. How about >> "Like public roads"? For the second sentence, I think "we" has >> problematic ambiguity about who it refers to. I also think it might >> be helpful to to make it clearer that the funding comes from a large >> group of people, perhaps by using the term "crowdfunding". So how >> about this: >> >> Like public roads, freely-licensed works are public goods that >> benefit everyone. >> >> Snowdrift.coop enables sustainable crowdfunding for >> freely-licensed works. >> >> This second sentence could also be used alone in other contexts, >> potentially. > > Another thought: Changing "public roads" to "well-maintained public > roads" might really help by more explicitly pointing to the connection > between "a snowdrift" and "public goods that benefit everyone". So how > about: > > Like well-maintained public roads, freely-licensed works are public > goods that benefit everyone. >
I see the impetus, but "well-maintained roads… benefit everyone" is like saying "great FLO software benefits everyone". Sure, lousy public goods aren't much benefit, but they're still public goods. So, this phrasing seems to confuse the *issue* of public goods and the ideal of *great* public goods. And we want to talk about the shittiness of public goods status quo! > Snowdrift.coop enables sustainable crowdfunding for freely-licensed > works. > > I'm also tempted to mention a few examples so it's less abstract: > > Like well-maintained public roads, freely-licensed works are public > goods that benefit everyone. > > Snowdrift.coop enables sustainable crowdfunding for freely-licensed > works - for example software, music, art, journalism, etc. > That impetus to list software, music, art, journalism, educational materials, and research… that matches my own and is nearly exactly the text I had in older versions of the homepage from early on, basically prior to our fund drive at the end of 2014… It went through lots of iterations but for example at one point it was: --- Cultural and educational works, technology, scientific research, and journalism all provide the greatest value when everyone can freely access, adapt, and share. But since our consumer market fails for <i>public goods</i>, most creative projects support their work with <i>artificial restrictions</i> and <i>third-party ads</i>. Yet if we cooperate, we can fund progress without compromise… ---- That's a bit wordy, but you get the gist and it gives some perspective of how I was trying to express things before. Mostly, inside folks criticized the length and verbosity (not without merit), but we didn't have enough outside feedback and research… > As I mentioned in the meeting just now, looking through the feedback > from SCALE may help to inform this discussion, so we could either > postpone further discussion until after I've had a chance to summarize > and share that with everyone, or continue discussing in the meantime. > > Best, > > Michael > > > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > Design@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
