On 15.10.2016 04:35, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> With a road blocked by a snowdrift, everyone wants it cleared, but
> nobody wants to do it all themselves. Of course, nothing gets done if
> each of us waits for others to do the work.
> That's an example of the PUBLIC GOODS PROBLEM where we fail to cooperate
> enough to support resources that benefit everyone.

Not convinced of that last sentence. The public goods problem exist, but
so do public goods. Clearly this does not match the snowdrift problem
you refere to in the sentence before. It covers the road and does not
allow passage *at all*. We *do* have public goods of the kind we want to
support, though. To make the snowdrift analogy work there needs to be a
problem that stands for the pile of snow: an _unsolved_ problem.

I think the unsolved problem is to organize financial project support in
*direct relation* to the scope of public relevance. – Which is where we
can often spot a shocking discrepancy: Relevance != $upport
Our goal is to leverage exactly and only at this point.

We need to somehow say that being a public good that benefits everyone
isn't good enough for us. Sweeping demand of a project isn't just
desired, to some degree it is the only thing we truly care about.
Because everything else can stick with the status quo and have the same
results as what we can offer them in our system (few demand = few

> Public goods can also be things like music, software, movies, news,
> research…  We'd all love to get these things for free with no
> limitations. But then how could we fund their development in the first
> place?

I think at this point we need to add this caveat:
 "... But then how could we fund their development in the first place?
And expect really professional quality and dedication"

> At Snowdrift.coop, we've created a new crowdmatching system to fund
> these types of projects while keeping them as free and open public goods.

I like that.

> When supporting projects here, you don't risk volunteering alone, and
> there's no hyped-up, all-or-nothing, one-time campaigns. You just make a
> pledge that says, "l'll chip in a little more for each person who joins
> me!" And because we calculate our crowdmatching donations monthly, our
> system combines mutual assurance with sustainable funding and
> accountability.

I think "hyped-up" is a really alien accusation that smells of prejudice
towards our best known "competitor". Lets not start mudslinging ;)

> Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for
> everyone!

All inn all this sounds good to me. If I would (but I don't want to) add
anything it would be to mention our Limit handling to take away fear of
explosion once people grasp that in fact we let them "steal money out of
each others pockets" ;)

If at any time you re-record this try to speak a *little bit* slower
than your first take. The images can't keep up with hasty speech.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to