On 09/20/2015 03:34 AM, mray wrote: > On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >>> @"we": >>> "we" might be less inclusive than "together", but my point was that it >>> addresses the human factor at all. (unlike "funding free culture"). >>> "we" is almost as important as the financial and freedom parts of us. >>> "together" overreaches in that aspect in my opinion. >>> Let's face it: We are a closed club! We ask people to get on board, open >>> up an account and trust their money with us. Our whole point is to >>> persuade people to join the in-group. Not drawing a line makes that hard. >>> "we" is also short. >>> >> >> Although subtle, the ".coop" part of the name already includes the >> community aspect. Aesthetically, I like "funding" better than "we fund", >> and the "ing" part emphasizes the ongoing aspect of things. I don't feel >> strongly here though. > > The reason I value the "we" so strongly is because we need to make clear > that snowdrift is something to be part of. "funding" alone makes it > remain unclear how the funding is done, but this is the *VERY* essence > of our cause, it is "WE" who are funding this. not some snowdrift entity. > along with "we fund" any appeal like "join us" makes so much more sense, > it just fits way better. > aesthetically i don't care about either form that much. > "We fund" is more dynamic than "funding" I think, though. >
I'm not sure about the dynamicness of "we fund" over "funding". I really like the "ing", however, I agree about the collective / join us issue. I wish it wasn't as long, but the feeling of togetherness is better spelled out. Ignoring length, "Working together to fund the digital commons" is the best way to completely get all the meaning. Another would be "collective funding of the digital commons" or "social funding for the digital commons" or "coming together to fund the digital commons" or, how about: "join us in funding the digital commons!" or shorter version of that, "fund the digital commons with us!" or, I like this best of my little brainstorm here: "help us fund the digital commons!" variations of that: "help fund the digital commons" or "let's fund the digital commons" … I'm not opposed to "we" entirely, but I would like to get feedback from others and see what others think of variations like I just posted. > >> ... > >> >> Let me be completely clear: the *only* reason I think it's okay at all >> to consider a slogan that just says "free" but doesn't include "open" is >> because we actually *want* projects on Snowdrift.coop to be accessible >> at no-charge, gratis. So, we *are* talking about funding the work to >> make things that are then gratis to the world. So, emphasizing that >> we're building a no-charge commons is OKAY. Thus, I don't totally reject >> "free" alone. But we shouldn't fool ourselves, in a short slogan, "free" >> will continue to emphasize gratis no matter what we do. It does not >> bring to mind a distinction between FLO and proprietary for most people. >> The word that does that best for most English speakers is "open". And >> "open" is a word where Bryan's point stands: our main objection is that >> others use it in ways we don't like, and maybe that isn't a strong >> enough objection. > > This is what I mean by fuzziness that I'm willing to accept in a slogan. > "free" isn't precise enough to exactly phrase what we mean, *BUT* the > whole gratis angle plays in our hands, too. After all the most relevant > freedom for people in our case is to get digital goods without cost! > Sure the freedom to inspect and change does not get explicitly included > as we would like, but I see we can do that well enough later where we > don't have the pressure to be brief and catchy. > And "free" isn't wrong! If it was it would not matter how, short > positive and catchy it is. > We just have to rely on people to read _at least_ a bit more about the > project than our slogan. > I even see how we have a _freedom_ to leave things a open in terms of > exact interpretation, "free" is after all a very broad term. > Yes, so accepting the gratis fuzziness, I don't see "free" in our slogan as unacceptable, but I still dislike the lack of clarity, and the inconsistency in terminology. >> ... >>> What about: >>> "we fund digital commons" ? >>> >> >> I just really prefer the aesthetics of "funding the digital commons" >> more than "we fund the digital commons". Hard to put into words. I think >> we need the "the" either way. >> >> In defense of the "digital commons" as the direction (with either "we" >> or "…ing"), it avoids inconsistency with FLO elsewhere, avoids >> partisanship on the FLO wording debate, it accurately describes our >> mission, and we can build on it from there to explain to people *what* >> the digital commons is, and that FLO terms are necessary to be truly >> part of the commons… >> >> Reflecting on this now, a bit after I wrote it, I think "digital >> commons" is probably the best balance of everything. >> >> To build on Paul's post, "funding the commons" seems the most core >> thing, but we aren't funding parks and roads actually, and so "digital >> commons" does remove the vagueness substantially. >> >> My only complaint about "digital commons" is that it emphasizes >> something incidental, the medium for sharing. I want to emphasize the >> importance of journalism, science, music, art… and not seem like this is >> a site focused on concerns of technophiles. But that's a minor concern >> we can deal with otherwise and doesn't seem enough to reject this proposal. >> >> I think "funding the digital commons" is good and significantly better >> in many important ways over "we fund free culture". I would be happiest >> if we had a better word than "digital" and I don't really like "funding >> the internet commons" or "funding the online commons" > > I'd leave "the" out for brevities sake alone. It does not seem to add > anything other than length. As a native German speaker I'm often tempted > to add too many "the"s, but I don't miss it here. "the digital commons" > somehow suggests to me that there is an established term that it refers > to. But afaik there isn't. > "we fund commons" actually doesn't work well natively in English. "commons" does not equal "the commons". It's similar to "internet" versus "the internet", we *can* say "we'll connect on the internet", but we never say "we'll connect on internet" — even though we *could* say that, nobody does and it sounds quite weird. Another similar term is "arts" vs "the arts". "We support arts" sounds very weird, "we support the arts" sounds normal. When talking about the *concept* the general thing and not some *countable* plural, the "the" is basically required. To me. "we fund digital commons" sounds like "we don't just fine that digital common, we fund this other one too, in fact, we fund a bunch of commons. And the term "common" as a noun is extremely weird, basically unused in common (as an adjective) English, whereas the term "the commons" is not so rare, sounds okay. ToI also know from experience that if we use it a lot, my mind's reaction to "fund digital commons" as "AAEENT ERROR BAD ENGLISH, WHERE'S THE 'THE'" *will* go away eventually, because that's happened to me multiple times before, like when I first heard the programming term "a closure" but then got more used to it. However, if I have that bad reaction initially, others may also. So, I definitely vote for "the" in "the digital commons". And I'd only accept losing the "the" if a supermajority of people we run it by think it sounds fine without the "the". If most people, especially English-speaking natives, think it's fine as "we fund digital commons" (ugh that still sounds so bad to me), I would probably accept that it's just me, but I worry it sounds bad to basically all native English speakers. > hm.. what I found was this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Commons > is that a problem for us? > I looked into it, and it really could be an issue. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78620698&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch That one is not really covering us, it's educational/training services, but… https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77171944&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch "Online services, namely, design, creation, hosting, and maintenance of websites for educational organizations containing scholarly data, information, and digital content " That definitely isn't exactly us, but we could still *not* be called "Digital Commons", however, having a slogan, not a name, and one that simply *includes* "digital commons" and we aren't exactly about hosting scholarly data, but still, lots of overlap… I dunno… Clearly "digital commons" is also a recognized generic language term: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/digital_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_commons_%28economics%29 That last one reaffirms our use of the term so strongly, that it makes me like the term even more for our slogan. Incidentally, "fund the digital commons" as a complete phrase in an online search shows only results about Snowdrift.coop already! The phrase I used in our fund drive was "Help launch Snowdrift.coop to fund the digital commons" > my favorites currently are: > > #1 "we fund free culture" > #2 "we fund digital commons" > #3 "we fund the digital commons" > Despite my loss aversion over things I like about the current slogan, I'll leave that behind and say: I like some form of "…fund… digital commons" best, whether it has the "ing" or "we" or another variation from my stuff above. I think "the digital commons" with the "the" is the best we've got. I suppose if we had to avoid the trademark issue, "online commons" is, well, I don't love it… -Aaron -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
