On November 24, 2016 4:52:08 AM EST, mray <m...@mray.de> wrote:
>Thank you Aaron!
>I like the script.
>> The snowdrift dilemma asks: who will clear the public road when we
>> get the results whether or not we help?
>* "get the results" sounds very neutral. "benefit from it" would a
>positive connotation to what we are about.


>> The same issue applies to funding public goods such as music,
>> movies, news, research, and so on…
>* music only *can* be an example. I think we need to say that free
>music, free software... are examples of public goods.

No opinion. I agree "free" is clearer but also more verbose.

>> So, Snowdrift.coop helps coordinate everyone with our new
>> system!
>* "So" is a place-filler and could be omitted.

Strongly +1

>* "helps" suggests we only do part of the all, but since every
>participant is part of "us" that isn't true. We *DO* coordinate, we
>don't just help. Let's omit "help" therefore, too.

Agree on the change but for different reasons. There are other organizations 
supporting public goods, so in that sense we are just a part of the whole, 

But the fact that there are others is irrelevant to what we do. We crowdmatch 
to fund public goods, regardless of whether they have other funding sources. 

>* I feel awkward about calling it "our crowdmatching". We should
>fundamentally claim the term and only call it "crowdmatching".
>"Our" suggests there might be other crowdmatchings.

-1. I don't think crowdmatching is something we can claim, much like Patreon 
can't claim the word "patron". And all the other words in this sentence and 
their order are important to get the idea across. The only thing I might change 
is "our" => "a".

Or you could say something like "...with a revolutionary new crowdmatching 

That doesn't exclusively claim it as ours, but it does position us as the 
pioneer of such a system. 

>> You just pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a
>> project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers
>> patrons and your budget limit.
>* "just" in an explanation from a biased source almost never turns out
>to be true. "just click here" to "just compile the code" and other
>variations have conditioned me strongly. To me it is a promise but
>rarely delivers. Even when it fits it's still loaded. And this one is
>exception :P

+1. While the basic mechanism is simple, the implications of it are not so, and 
we shouldn't claim they are. 

>Maybe start with introducing the limit first to not have to tip toe
>around the frightening money part?

-1. I'm not sure how to do this without putting too much focus on "but what 
if...?" I think it would be more appropriate to address this in a different 
video, or further down the home page.

>> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and
>> build consensus around the most promising projects.
>* Consensus is built indirectly, we shouldn't let people suggest
>somebody is directly involved in creating consensus. So a passive form
>like "consensus gets built" might fit better.

Addressed in other reply. 

>> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!
>* I want to nit pick on every part so I have to write something here,
>too. Done.
>I like it.

+1 and +1. People's first introduction to Snowdrift.coop is worth nitpicking 
on. And is coming along very nicely. 

>Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit
>coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the
>credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so it
>does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind all
>this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with naming
>name and slogan?

No opinion. 
Sent from my phone; please excuse my brevity.
Email policy: http://smichel.me/email
Design mailing list

Reply via email to