Hi friends, I think a tagline like 'Knowledge is Freedom' is short and yet tells a lot about our aims and objectives. Best Wishes, Subhajit Ganguly, Open Knowledge India <http://in.okfn.org>
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, heath rezabek <[email protected]> wrote: > Multiple taglines, adapted as needs change, has a definite appeal. I > think that if the simple phrase 'Open Knowledge' weren't so expansive, it'd > be a lot harder to live with the idea of multiple taglines. > > The potential community is definitely quite vast, in part because of the > flexibility of that phrase as a draw. While I was in San Francisco > recently for the Long Now space opening, I got a behind the scenes look at > the Internet Archive. I was musing on the fact that their mission tagline > is "Universal access to all knowledge." Well, that could just as easily be > an OK motto, as its scope is so vast. But it's taken. ;) > > The point is that by virtue of setting out on such a far-reaching journey, > (Open Knowledge), we are bound to find ourselves companions on the road > with a wide range of fellow travellers. Sometimes it'll surprise us > (though it shouldn't) that we're on the same road. But all kinds of things > turn out to be necessary aspects of a movement towards open knowledge. > (Trust and privacy, net neutrality, openness as a choice freely taken > rather than a forced mandate, etc.) > > In every encounter, we have to speak clearly and stand proudly for what we > hold true. The real purpose of any tagline in that moment should simply be > to identify our common cause, and to open a dialogue. > > MLK wrote, in a telegraph to Cesar Chavez in jail: "Our separate > struggles are really one." > > Until we can achieve such clarity, I think we should embrace the strength > of our name as it stands, and then seek out those words of clear dialogue > as the opportunities arise. > > So yes, multiple taglines do not necessarily have to equate with > indecision. There's just a lot to decide, together, over time. > > - Heath > > > On Saturday, June 14, 2014, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> While everyone has their opinions, if the tag-line that had been >> originally chosen without so much input had been an actual call-to-action, >> something actually decent, people might not have bothered complaining. >> >> I think "see how data can change the world" is clearly *disliked* by >> lots (perhaps most) of us, the thing I've found most troubling is that it >> wasn't scrapped. >> >> I have some experience with this sort of process, and I can tell you >> this: it is extremely hard to find something everyone likes. The goal needs >> to instead be to find something that *nobody* hates (and hopefully most >> people like). The only reason "see how data can change the world" seems to >> have been included in the running is because it was already there and some >> people had early prejudice for it. Whether we end up with a main tagline or >> 3-5 or whatever, "see how" needs to be *omitted.* It's been pointed out >> by multiple people how passive, distancing, topic-centric, and unclear it >> is. It doesn't qualify for "nobody hates it" status even if we hesitate to >> use the word "hate". >> >> We can go through the rest and figure out if any options nobody hates. >> Those are the ones we can move forward with. And I'm not saying just give >> in to haters, but when reasonable people express things that aren't "it's >> too fluffy, or it's too chunky" but really express true dislike with >> explanations and persistence, *then* we *need* to drop the item in >> question. >> >> Respectfully, >> Aaron >> >> -- >> Aaron Wolf >> wolftune.com >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Laura James <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Daniela, >>> >>> On 14 June 2014 12:43, Daniela Mattern <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> So, my suggestion is: Why can't we just have a set of taglines (3-5) >>>> that we endorse as Open Knowledge and people can select the one, they most >>>> identify with. >>>> >>> >>> *Personally* I think that's a great idea; it allows folks to pick the >>> phrase they feel most strongly about, and/or that they think will work best >>> for the audience they have. In fact, that's sort of what is happening at >>> the moment :) folks are using different phrases, as they need to (in email >>> signatures, T shirts, etc). To make this work well we'd need to have an >>> agreed shortlist which people can easily find to select phrases from, and >>> potentially as Heath suggested, modify those phrases if appropriate too (eg >>> for those working in a specific country or topic). >>> >>> One of the big learnings for me in the first half of this year has been >>> that the open knowledge community is *even more* diverse than I had >>> understood before. Of course, with the range of local and working groups >>> and activities and projects, it's been clear for years that there was a >>> wide range of things, but the evident challenge in coming up with a short >>> shared statement has really highlighted this even more. I had thought that >>> with input from the community survey, a series of interviews and workshops, >>> and some skilled synthesis, we could have come up with a single phrase of >>> words about open knowledge that would work 'well enough' for most folks, >>> and I was wrong. >>> >>> I feel that at this point, we should perhaps park the idea of a single >>> tagline, and instead as you suggest agree a short list of lines for people >>> to choose from. Folks could decide within their own groups/organisations if >>> they, as a group want to stick to just one or two of those lines, or use >>> the full range. For instance, a Chapter might pick a single phrase which >>> works well for their work and local community. >>> >>> The exploration of what beliefs and vision we all share will be easier >>> and richer in the context of longer texts than a tagline. I'm hopeful that >>> the manifesto idea might be one part of that :) >>> >>> In order to find these we should have a list of suggestions and then a >>>> voting process - probably multiple rounds of voting. OKF Finland has a lot >>>> of experience on how to organize group decision making, so maybe Joonas or >>>> Jaakko can help. Before this, we should encourage people to contribute with >>>> suggestions - not only on this list, but have an at least one month process >>>> after which Working Groups, Chapters, Local Groups, and individuals come up >>>> with an idea. >>>> >>> >>> I should note that the working-group and local-group coordination lists >>> were asked to contribute ideas etc on the tagline page on the wiki quite a >>> few weeks ago now, so I hope we've gathered their input a bit; but I don't >>> think that Rufus's email at the start of the thread went out to them yet, >>> so we should make sure that we include these key lists in whatever is >>> happening now/next. >>> >>> Laura >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> okfn-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >>> >>> >> > > -- > Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc > Icarus Interstellar / FarMaker Design Corps // icarusinterstellar.org > Open Knowledge Foundation / Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // okfn.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
