Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 07.11.2016 02:49, Aaron Wolf wrote: > I think iterating on a video is not crazy. If we make a story-board as a > necessary step to a video, we definitely should iterate on that before > the video is made, but we need to be willing to make an acceptable video > with the knowledge we may reuse some of the ideas and assets in creating > a later updated video. We need a story-board. I have problems coming up with one, given the text in its current form. > > Anyway, with short time frame, I don't want to draw out debate here > forever. Perfect is enemy of good, etc. I want to move forward. I like > the script as is. I'm not going to refuse entirely to discuss, but I > want to get a sense from everyone involved that we all embrace and > accept the "perfect is enemy of good" concern and not nit-pick too much > (which does mean also that I shouldn't fight too damn hard to block an > edit that is okay and can let us go forward, but I will ask for some > deference here in my part of determining the messaging). > > Attached is updated file with replies to the comments. > Ok, I take this as a rejection of my edits, so lets meet properly. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
I think iterating on a video is not crazy. If we make a story-board as a necessary step to a video, we definitely should iterate on that before the video is made, but we need to be willing to make an acceptable video with the knowledge we may reuse some of the ideas and assets in creating a later updated video. Anyway, with short time frame, I don't want to draw out debate here forever. Perfect is enemy of good, etc. I want to move forward. I like the script as is. I'm not going to refuse entirely to discuss, but I want to get a sense from everyone involved that we all embrace and accept the "perfect is enemy of good" concern and not nit-pick too much (which does mean also that I shouldn't fight too damn hard to block an edit that is okay and can let us go forward, but I will ask for some deference here in my part of determining the messaging). Attached is updated file with replies to the comments. new-intro-video-script_shortened.odt Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 06.11.2016 06:29, Aaron Wolf wrote: > NEW SCRIPT AND AUDIO: > > http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/5619d755c8/?raw=1 > http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/48e7fb3416/?raw=1 > > This only has a minor negative note contrasting against threshold > campaigns and no reference to the deeper wonky stuff or to the awfulness > of club goods. > > I spoke slower. I could do more takes with tons of different vocal > qualities or attitudes, but there's no time. This reasonably upbeat, > superficial intro is what we've got. > > Let's make a video and iterate from here! > > Feedback welcome, but I probably won't find time to really work on > updating this soon, and we need to push something workable out ASAP. > > Cheers, > Aaron > This is a better take than the last one but still has issues we need to address. If we iterate we need to iterate on a storyboard. Not on a resulting video. (I certainly won't constantly "iterate" a video based on changing ideas or new versions of audio tracks) A compromise that could work right now would be an edited version of the current track as the attached Writer documents suggests. getting way too late here... Cheers, Robert new-intro-video-script_shortened.odt Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 11/05/2016 11:29 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > NEW SCRIPT AND AUDIO: > > http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/5619d755c8/?raw=1 > http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/48e7fb3416/?raw=1 > > This only has a minor negative note contrasting against threshold > campaigns and no reference to the deeper wonky stuff or to the awfulness > of club goods. > > I spoke slower. I could do more takes with tons of different vocal > qualities or attitudes, but there's no time. This reasonably upbeat, > superficial intro is what we've got. > > Let's make a video and iterate from here! > > Feedback welcome, but I probably won't find time to really work on > updating this soon, and we need to push something workable out ASAP. > > Cheers, > Aaron > Sounds great! ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
NEW SCRIPT AND AUDIO: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/5619d755c8/?raw=1 http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/48e7fb3416/?raw=1 This only has a minor negative note contrasting against threshold campaigns and no reference to the deeper wonky stuff or to the awfulness of club goods. I spoke slower. I could do more takes with tons of different vocal qualities or attitudes, but there's no time. This reasonably upbeat, superficial intro is what we've got. Let's make a video and iterate from here! Feedback welcome, but I probably won't find time to really work on updating this soon, and we need to push something workable out ASAP. Cheers, Aaron signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
I originally favored option B. Having read all this and especially having seen the co-op example, I think option A is definitely superior for this kind of intro video. To echo what someone said earlier, we should define ourselves by our own merits, not by contrast to something else. Option B certainly strengthens the argument (at the cost of becoming more divisive), but I would be opposed to putting any more than a single sentence that mentions how "when we can't solve the snowdrift dilemma, turn to club goods, instead." At least for this video, which will hopefully be the most widely viewed media, we should steer far clear of casting shade on club goods (and by extension, those who use them); making people feel bad for using or supporting club goods is counterproductive because it is exclusionary. See also: https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/inessential-weirdnesses-in-free-software/ So, I think you two are getting lost in semantics of the metaphor that are, IMO, irrelevant, given that we've decided on option A. ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/19/2016 02:22 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 19.10.2016 22:56, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote: >>> >>> You are partially misrepresenting my point here. >>> I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources. >>> I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way: >>> >>> One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe >>> market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger >>> threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence. >>> You can go both ways at the same time. >>> >> >> I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time, >> money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for >> these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one >> project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not >> *necessarily* at that point. > > This is my whole point. The exclusiveness you attribute to the choice > isn't realistic. > I wasn't attributing exclusiveness, that wasn't my intent. I was attributing rivalrousness, which is real. Unless you're rich, you have some limit to your budget and everyone has limited attention. Most people cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars regularly for proprietary software licenses *and* donate hundreds of dollars to FLO software. There's some limit here, some competition. Besides, every dollar that funds another bit of work on some proprietary project helps it win market-share over FLO rivals. So, in the competition for market-share (which is admittedly not always zero-sum if the market itself grows), *depriving* the proprietary project is helpful just as funding the FLO project is. This rivalrousness is the point, and people do face this sort of dilemma in that the cost of engaging with both options is a higher total cost. >> >> Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these >> same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed >> in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to >> fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here >> where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps >> allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct >> competition. >> >> I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma >> of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit >> comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual >> benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club >> goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less >> potential available for public goods) > > As long as you keep the two dilemmas separate, nice and tidy there is no > issue for me. > I agree, there needs to be absolutely no room for confusion about what "the snowdrift dilemma" is. The other club vs public option dilemma is a related but distinct dilemma. >> >>> In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be in both states at once). >>> >>> You can drive on both roads at once. See above. >>> >> >> No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can >> use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at >> once, that is just not possible. > > Exactly. That is the point where I think the roads metaphor falls short > when using it in both dilemmas. > It doesn't fall apart. Like I said with movies: you only watch one movie at a time. You only use one road at a time. It's as appropriate as a metaphor can be, i.e. imperfect. >> >> Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads >> dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch >> two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention. >> You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular >> time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone >> sincerely disagreeing with that assertion. >> >>> >>> I think A. is much better. >>> 1. It is simple short and easy. >>> 2. We convince with what is good about us, not by what is bad about others. >>> >> >> This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right >> now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case. >> >> I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in >> some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental >> way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is >> divisive. >> >> To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice >> aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas that
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 19.10.2016 22:56, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote: >> >> You are partially misrepresenting my point here. >> I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources. >> I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way: >> >> One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe >> market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger >> threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence. >> You can go both ways at the same time. >> > > I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time, > money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for > these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one > project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not > *necessarily* at that point. This is my whole point. The exclusiveness you attribute to the choice isn't realistic. > > Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these > same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed > in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to > fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here > where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps > allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct > competition. > > I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma > of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit > comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual > benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club > goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less > potential available for public goods) As long as you keep the two dilemmas separate, nice and tidy there is no issue for me. > >> >>> >>> In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club >>> goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't >>> freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still >>> not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be >>> in both states at once). >> >> You can drive on both roads at once. See above. >> > > No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can > use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at > once, that is just not possible. Exactly. That is the point where I think the roads metaphor falls short when using it in both dilemmas. > > Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads > dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch > two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention. > You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular > time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone > sincerely disagreeing with that assertion. > >>> >> >> I think A. is much better. >> 1. It is simple short and easy. >> 2. We convince with what is good about us, not by what is bad about others. >> > > This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right > now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case. > > I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in > some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental > way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is > divisive. > > To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice > aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas that co-ops face > (that don't apply to other businesses)". B is like me saying "co-ops are > ethical and just, typical capitalist businesses where an owner dictates > terms to the workers and clients have ethical problems X, Y, Z, and they > shouldn't exist, we should only have co-ops." > > To apply that to a strong example: A: "we built a co-op taxi service > that uses a FLO app to increase efficiency and work in a more reliable > way than traditional taxis!" versus B. "GPS and software organizing taxi > service is superb, but Uber getting an effective monopoly with lock-in > and dictated top-down terms is awful, That's why we built this co-op > version of that sort of service; and we all should work to support this > ethical vision and reject Uber!" > > I see why there are good arguments for going with A, but people *should* > recognize and experience the B argument, and it's a view I happen to hold. > > At any rate, I insist that we accept and welcome B for at least > something to have available in our arsenal and for whenever we get > questions that are best answered by B. It's the stronger way to insist > that what we're doing *really* matters (because club goods are NOT > OKAY). But for the video, we need to stick with A. A is also safer > because it is less divisive (and it's simpler). > > I agree that w
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote: > > You are partially misrepresenting my point here. > I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources. > I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way: > > One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe > market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger > threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence. > You can go both ways at the same time. > I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time, money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not *necessarily* at that point. Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct competition. I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less potential available for public goods) > >> >> In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club >> goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't >> freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still >> not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be >> in both states at once). > > You can drive on both roads at once. See above. > No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at once, that is just not possible. Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention. You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone sincerely disagreeing with that assertion. >> > > I think A. is much better. > 1. It is simple short and easy. > 2. We convince with what is good about us, not by what is bad about others. > This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case. I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is divisive. To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas that co-ops face (that don't apply to other businesses)". B is like me saying "co-ops are ethical and just, typical capitalist businesses where an owner dictates terms to the workers and clients have ethical problems X, Y, Z, and they shouldn't exist, we should only have co-ops." To apply that to a strong example: A: "we built a co-op taxi service that uses a FLO app to increase efficiency and work in a more reliable way than traditional taxis!" versus B. "GPS and software organizing taxi service is superb, but Uber getting an effective monopoly with lock-in and dictated top-down terms is awful, That's why we built this co-op version of that sort of service; and we all should work to support this ethical vision and reject Uber!" I see why there are good arguments for going with A, but people *should* recognize and experience the B argument, and it's a view I happen to hold. At any rate, I insist that we accept and welcome B for at least something to have available in our arsenal and for whenever we get questions that are best answered by B. It's the stronger way to insist that what we're doing *really* matters (because club goods are NOT OKAY). But for the video, we need to stick with A. A is also safer because it is less divisive (and it's simpler). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 19.10.2016 00:56, Aaron Wolf wrote: > Okay, the reply below is the unedited reply for now. I hope it's clear > enough. I haven't had time to write the clear new thread I want to get > to soon. > > >> That seems like an effective concise way to refer to the snowdrift. I >> think it also needs to point out the problem of whether the work will >> get done at all, though. Also, a problem I see with saying "Other public >> goods include music, software..." is that in our current world these >> things are typically /not /public goods because of how they're >> licensed. I'm wondering if, for the sake of clarity, albeit at the >> expense of simplicity, we should specify "free and open music, >> software..." or something like that? For example: >> > > Yes, that exact concern is the heart of the whole presentation challenge. > > Put simply (this is largely what I intend(ed) to post separate thread on): > > Club goods are a tragedy. The messaging is easiest if we ignore club > goods and specify that we're only focused on public goods. But if we do > mention club goods (which may actually be the most compelling and > important thing to get people concerned about), do we say "within > non-rivalrous goods, there's club goods and public goods, and the > snowdrift dilemma only applies to public goods" OR do we say > "non-rivalrous goods are *naturally* public goods and so face the > snowdrift dilemma, and because of the dilemma we get stuck with the > tragedy of mainly club goods"? > > Effectively: > > A. within broad scope of works to fund at all, we show how we're > narrowed down to public goods (*FLO* music and software) and *that* > scope brings up snowdrift dilemma, plain and simple. Elsewhere, we can > describe why it *matters* to support public goods over club goods. > > or > > B. treat club goods as non-existent in terms of natural states of > resources, assume all non-rivalrous stuff faces snowdrift dilemma and > describe the negatives of club goods as an abortion from the failure to > solve the snowdrift dilemma (which, though simplistic, has basis in > reality). > > B is what I had been doing. It gets stronger at the assertion that club > goods are themselves a tragic problem. I also want to assert that all > support of club goods undermines the promotion of public goods and thus > we have a second type of dilemma: Use your limited resources to pay > tolls or donate to public goods, and there's a logical matrix for that > dilemma. > > In that approach with B, I'm saying that, indeed the dilemma users at > Snowdrift.coop face isn't just to donate or not to FLO public goods, > it's whether to reject proprietary stuff so as to not help it keep > out-competing the FLO public goods. > > I think the legitimate part of Robert's complaints is that B means > presenting two related dilemmas instead of a single clear snowdrift dilemma. > > The reason I prefer B is because it gives no inherent legitimacy to club > goods at all. If we do A and just acknowledge that club goods and public > goods are the two categories of non-rivalrous goods and that the > snowdrift dilemma and snowdrift.coop are just about the public goods… > well, that's simple and clear but implies that club goods are a > legitimate category that inherently exists. > > Practically speaking, many people will respond in ways we want to the > assertion that all club goods *should* become public goods, the club > goods category deserves no legitimacy. But there are certainly lots of > people who currently believe without question that both categories are > legitimate and don't think the decision to celebrate and support public > goods needs to go along with any rejection of club goods. Those latter > people we want first and foremost to be patrons still, even though I'd > like to convince them to change their views on club goods. > > In arguments Robert and I had, we identified two views we do agree > about: I assert that support for club goods (e.g. for proprietary > software) undermines the goal of public (FLO) goods. The fact of > competition for attention and resources and the network effects from > people sharing and utilizing the same resources means that there is a > choice between supporting and using proprietary stuff versus supporting > and using FLO stuff. Robert insisted that no such choice exists. Anyone > can use and support both, there's no inherent conflict. He didn't at all > accept my assertion that time, money, attention are limited resources > and giving them to proprietary stuff reduces the available amount for > potential FLO support. You are partially misrepresenting my point here. I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources. I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way: One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence. Y
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/19/2016 04:10 AM, mray wrote: > > On 17.10.2016 23:10, Michael Siepmann wrote: >> >> On 10/17/2016 09:16 AM, mray wrote: >>> >>> >> As I mentioned in the meeting today, I think a more story-oriented, less >> academic approach would be preferable (though it would be good to have >> rigorous academic-style explanations available somewhere for those who >> want them, but probably text and images rather than video would be fine >> for that). I've drafted a script to illustrate what I mean. It's >> longish - reading it aloud took me just over 2 minutes - and I'm not >> suggesting it as a final draft, but more just something to illustrate a >> different approach that I think could be more engaging for a wider range >> of people. It has two voices - narrator and character, in order to >> combine a personal story approach with a third-person explanatory approach: >> >> ``` >> >> {Narrator voice} >> >> Here's a riddle for you: How is creating software, music, movies, etc, >> like clearing a snowdrift? >> >> {Character voice} >> >> “A few years ago, the only road out of our town was blocked by a >> snowdrift. If enough of us had worked together, we could have cleared it >> in no time. But I wasn't going to spend hours shoveling it on my own, or >> with just a few fellow shovelers. Seems everyone else felt the same way, >> so the snowdrift just sat there. Nobody could get in or out of town for >> days.” >> >> “Eventually the snowdrift melted and a slick sales guy drove into town. >> He offered us guaranteed snow removal in return for letting “Tolls R Us, >> Incorporated” charge tolls, track our driving habits, and plaster the >> roadside with 'smart' billboards that would show ads targeted to whoever >> was driving by.” >> >> “Nobody wanted tolls, surveillance, or billboards on our beautiful >> scenic road. But nobody wanted to be trapped by a snowdrift again, either.” >> >> “Just as our mayor was about to reluctantly sign on the dotted line, >> some kid yelled out 'Stop! There's a better way!'” >> >> “You know what? That kid's idea really worked! We call it >> /crowdmatching/. Now, anytime a snowdrift needs clearing, a crowd of >> people shows up, willing to spend 1 minute shoveling for every 10 people >> who shovel too. Last time, 100 people showed up. With 100 people each >> willing to shovel for 10 minutes, that poor snowdrift didn't stand a >> chance!” >> >> {Narrator voice} >> >> You might not be too concerned about snowdrifts, but we're all actually >> in a similar situation with digital goods like music, software, movies, >> news, and research. >> >> The same way it was hard for the townspeople to cooperate to clear the >> snowdrift, it's hard for people to cooperate to fund creation of 'public >> goods' that benefit us all. >> >> As a result, many good things don't get created at all, while others get >> encumbered with artificial restrictions, ads, and surveillance. >> >> The Snowdrift.coop crowdmatching system creates a viable way to provide >> sustainable crowdfunding for projects that create free and open public >> goods. >> >> You just make a pledge that says, "Each month, l'll chip in a little for >> each person who joins me!" >> >> Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for >> everyone! >> >> ``` > Here is my impression: > > I like the introduction with presenting it like a riddle. > It captures attention and makes curious. It also prepares you for the > kind of explanation that will happen afterwards. > > The narrator/character-play feels somewhat too strong tool as it seems > to work great for more complex presentations. I fear if we succeed in > making our presentation simple enough it might not fit well. > > It is also quite long and contains many story related details that may > be necessary only for good storytelling. > > I don't think a connection to peoples every day life is relevant here, > since it is obviously a metaphor in a story, so that is not an issue i > think. Thanks Robert. I agree it's probably too long and complex for intro purposes. It was mostly just an idea to prompt discussion or other ideas. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/18/2016 04:56 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > Okay, the reply below is the unedited reply for now. I hope it's clear > enough. I haven't had time to write the clear new thread I want to get > to soon. > > >> That seems like an effective concise way to refer to the snowdrift. I >> think it also needs to point out the problem of whether the work will >> get done at all, though. Also, a problem I see with saying "Other public >> goods include music, software..." is that in our current world these >> things are typically /not /public goods because of how they're >> licensed. I'm wondering if, for the sake of clarity, albeit at the >> expense of simplicity, we should specify "free and open music, >> software..." or something like that? For example: >> > Yes, that exact concern is the heart of the whole presentation challenge. > > Put simply (this is largely what I intend(ed) to post separate thread on): > > Club goods are a tragedy. The messaging is easiest if we ignore club > goods and specify that we're only focused on public goods. But if we do > mention club goods (which may actually be the most compelling and > important thing to get people concerned about), do we say "within > non-rivalrous goods, there's club goods and public goods, and the > snowdrift dilemma only applies to public goods" OR do we say > "non-rivalrous goods are *naturally* public goods and so face the > snowdrift dilemma, and because of the dilemma we get stuck with the > tragedy of mainly club goods"? > > Effectively: > > A. within broad scope of works to fund at all, we show how we're > narrowed down to public goods (*FLO* music and software) and *that* > scope brings up snowdrift dilemma, plain and simple. Elsewhere, we can > describe why it *matters* to support public goods over club goods. > > or > > B. treat club goods as non-existent in terms of natural states of > resources, assume all non-rivalrous stuff faces snowdrift dilemma and > describe the negatives of club goods as an abortion from the failure to > solve the snowdrift dilemma (which, though simplistic, has basis in > reality). > > B is what I had been doing. It gets stronger at the assertion that club > goods are themselves a tragic problem. I also want to assert that all > support of club goods undermines the promotion of public goods and thus > we have a second type of dilemma: Use your limited resources to pay > tolls or donate to public goods, and there's a logical matrix for that > dilemma. > > In that approach with B, I'm saying that, indeed the dilemma users at > Snowdrift.coop face isn't just to donate or not to FLO public goods, > it's whether to reject proprietary stuff so as to not help it keep > out-competing the FLO public goods. > > I think the legitimate part of Robert's complaints is that B means > presenting two related dilemmas instead of a single clear snowdrift dilemma. > > The reason I prefer B is because it gives no inherent legitimacy to club > goods at all. If we do A and just acknowledge that club goods and public > goods are the two categories of non-rivalrous goods and that the > snowdrift dilemma and snowdrift.coop are just about the public goods… > well, that's simple and clear but implies that club goods are a > legitimate category that inherently exists. > > Practically speaking, many people will respond in ways we want to the > assertion that all club goods *should* become public goods, the club > goods category deserves no legitimacy. But there are certainly lots of > people who currently believe without question that both categories are > legitimate and don't think the decision to celebrate and support public > goods needs to go along with any rejection of club goods. Those latter > people we want first and foremost to be patrons still, even though I'd > like to convince them to change their views on club goods. > > In arguments Robert and I had, we identified two views we do agree > about: I assert that support for club goods (e.g. for proprietary > software) undermines the goal of public (FLO) goods. The fact of > competition for attention and resources and the network effects from > people sharing and utilizing the same resources means that there is a > choice between supporting and using proprietary stuff versus supporting > and using FLO stuff. Robert insisted that no such choice exists. Anyone > can use and support both, there's no inherent conflict. He didn't at all > accept my assertion that time, money, attention are limited resources > and giving them to proprietary stuff reduces the available amount for > potential FLO support. > > In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club > goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't > freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still > not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be > in both states at once). > > I want to have people consider this perspective while still > understanding t
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 17.10.2016 23:10, Michael Siepmann wrote: > > On 10/17/2016 09:16 AM, mray wrote: >> >> > > As I mentioned in the meeting today, I think a more story-oriented, less > academic approach would be preferable (though it would be good to have > rigorous academic-style explanations available somewhere for those who > want them, but probably text and images rather than video would be fine > for that). I've drafted a script to illustrate what I mean. It's > longish - reading it aloud took me just over 2 minutes - and I'm not > suggesting it as a final draft, but more just something to illustrate a > different approach that I think could be more engaging for a wider range > of people. It has two voices - narrator and character, in order to > combine a personal story approach with a third-person explanatory approach: > > ``` > > {Narrator voice} > > Here's a riddle for you: How is creating software, music, movies, etc, > like clearing a snowdrift? > > {Character voice} > > “A few years ago, the only road out of our town was blocked by a > snowdrift. If enough of us had worked together, we could have cleared it > in no time. But I wasn't going to spend hours shoveling it on my own, or > with just a few fellow shovelers. Seems everyone else felt the same way, > so the snowdrift just sat there. Nobody could get in or out of town for > days.” > > “Eventually the snowdrift melted and a slick sales guy drove into town. > He offered us guaranteed snow removal in return for letting “Tolls R Us, > Incorporated” charge tolls, track our driving habits, and plaster the > roadside with 'smart' billboards that would show ads targeted to whoever > was driving by.” > > “Nobody wanted tolls, surveillance, or billboards on our beautiful > scenic road. But nobody wanted to be trapped by a snowdrift again, either.” > > “Just as our mayor was about to reluctantly sign on the dotted line, > some kid yelled out 'Stop! There's a better way!'” > > “You know what? That kid's idea really worked! We call it > /crowdmatching/. Now, anytime a snowdrift needs clearing, a crowd of > people shows up, willing to spend 1 minute shoveling for every 10 people > who shovel too. Last time, 100 people showed up. With 100 people each > willing to shovel for 10 minutes, that poor snowdrift didn't stand a > chance!” > > {Narrator voice} > > You might not be too concerned about snowdrifts, but we're all actually > in a similar situation with digital goods like music, software, movies, > news, and research. > > The same way it was hard for the townspeople to cooperate to clear the > snowdrift, it's hard for people to cooperate to fund creation of 'public > goods' that benefit us all. > > As a result, many good things don't get created at all, while others get > encumbered with artificial restrictions, ads, and surveillance. > > The Snowdrift.coop crowdmatching system creates a viable way to provide > sustainable crowdfunding for projects that create free and open public > goods. > > You just make a pledge that says, "Each month, l'll chip in a little for > each person who joins me!" > > Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for > everyone! > > ``` Here is my impression: I like the introduction with presenting it like a riddle. It captures attention and makes curious. It also prepares you for the kind of explanation that will happen afterwards. The narrator/character-play feels somewhat too strong tool as it seems to work great for more complex presentations. I fear if we succeed in making our presentation simple enough it might not fit well. It is also quite long and contains many story related details that may be necessary only for good storytelling. I don't think a connection to peoples every day life is relevant here, since it is obviously a metaphor in a story, so that is not an issue i think. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
Okay, the reply below is the unedited reply for now. I hope it's clear enough. I haven't had time to write the clear new thread I want to get to soon. > That seems like an effective concise way to refer to the snowdrift. I > think it also needs to point out the problem of whether the work will > get done at all, though. Also, a problem I see with saying "Other public > goods include music, software..." is that in our current world these > things are typically /not /public goods because of how they're > licensed. I'm wondering if, for the sake of clarity, albeit at the > expense of simplicity, we should specify "free and open music, > software..." or something like that? For example: > Yes, that exact concern is the heart of the whole presentation challenge. Put simply (this is largely what I intend(ed) to post separate thread on): Club goods are a tragedy. The messaging is easiest if we ignore club goods and specify that we're only focused on public goods. But if we do mention club goods (which may actually be the most compelling and important thing to get people concerned about), do we say "within non-rivalrous goods, there's club goods and public goods, and the snowdrift dilemma only applies to public goods" OR do we say "non-rivalrous goods are *naturally* public goods and so face the snowdrift dilemma, and because of the dilemma we get stuck with the tragedy of mainly club goods"? Effectively: A. within broad scope of works to fund at all, we show how we're narrowed down to public goods (*FLO* music and software) and *that* scope brings up snowdrift dilemma, plain and simple. Elsewhere, we can describe why it *matters* to support public goods over club goods. or B. treat club goods as non-existent in terms of natural states of resources, assume all non-rivalrous stuff faces snowdrift dilemma and describe the negatives of club goods as an abortion from the failure to solve the snowdrift dilemma (which, though simplistic, has basis in reality). B is what I had been doing. It gets stronger at the assertion that club goods are themselves a tragic problem. I also want to assert that all support of club goods undermines the promotion of public goods and thus we have a second type of dilemma: Use your limited resources to pay tolls or donate to public goods, and there's a logical matrix for that dilemma. In that approach with B, I'm saying that, indeed the dilemma users at Snowdrift.coop face isn't just to donate or not to FLO public goods, it's whether to reject proprietary stuff so as to not help it keep out-competing the FLO public goods. I think the legitimate part of Robert's complaints is that B means presenting two related dilemmas instead of a single clear snowdrift dilemma. The reason I prefer B is because it gives no inherent legitimacy to club goods at all. If we do A and just acknowledge that club goods and public goods are the two categories of non-rivalrous goods and that the snowdrift dilemma and snowdrift.coop are just about the public goods… well, that's simple and clear but implies that club goods are a legitimate category that inherently exists. Practically speaking, many people will respond in ways we want to the assertion that all club goods *should* become public goods, the club goods category deserves no legitimacy. But there are certainly lots of people who currently believe without question that both categories are legitimate and don't think the decision to celebrate and support public goods needs to go along with any rejection of club goods. Those latter people we want first and foremost to be patrons still, even though I'd like to convince them to change their views on club goods. In arguments Robert and I had, we identified two views we do agree about: I assert that support for club goods (e.g. for proprietary software) undermines the goal of public (FLO) goods. The fact of competition for attention and resources and the network effects from people sharing and utilizing the same resources means that there is a choice between supporting and using proprietary stuff versus supporting and using FLO stuff. Robert insisted that no such choice exists. Anyone can use and support both, there's no inherent conflict. He didn't at all accept my assertion that time, money, attention are limited resources and giving them to proprietary stuff reduces the available amount for potential FLO support. In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be in both states at once). I want to have people consider this perspective while still understanding that "the snowdrift dilemma" at its core is just about the public goods and doesn't directly talk about what happens when we fail. I.e. "because we fail to solve the snowdrift dilemma, we end up with toll ro
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/18/2016 11:28 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 10/18/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >> >>> The problem I have with the story is that anything a little too >>> far-fetched is hard to accept. People don't have the experience of >>> living in a town that has no tax-funded public services. Perhaps if the >>> story were described as a rural road out of town where there's no mayor >>> or such, then it's just the individuals in the houses in the >>> neighborhood dealing with the challenge of cooperation without an >>> existing government structure for support. >> True, but doesn't the same apply to the whole snowdrift / tolls & ads >> idea in our cartoon illustrations? >> > No, I've even heard from real people who are like "yeah, I have that > exact snowdrift dilemma in my neighborhood with people clearing the > sidewalks" and such. > > Everyone has experienced toll-roads and billboards. > > These are not far-fetched ideas at all. The whole "some town off > somewhere" etc. gives an othering feeling of a story happening to > someone else. > > Psychologically, the more concrete details you give, the more the > observer feels they are watching someone else and the more vague and > general it is, the more they can readily see it as their situation and > fill in the details with those that they know from their own experience. > > >> I'm leaning toward the view that Bryan brought up in the meeting >> yesterday (before you joined, Aaron) that we may be better off not >> trying to use any reference to snowdrifts and instead changing our name >> to crowdmatch.coop. I think trying to start with a snowdrift makes it >> much harder than it otherwise would be to create a clear quick and >> engaging introductory explanation. >> > While I understand the impetus to consider a name-change, I don't think > it makes sense, and I don't think we'll be more successful by dropping > the core principle explaining the challenge of public goods. > > For the video, we can omit the whole toll-road aspect as long as we > frame it correctly. If the point is to just skip the meaningful context > and get down to what we do (which has some merit), we can skip the large > story and just say "With a snowdrift we all need cleared, everyone gets > the results whether or not they helped do the work! That's the dilemma > facing public goods. Other public include music, software…" That seems like an effective concise way to refer to the snowdrift. I think it also needs to point out the problem of whether the work will get done at all, though. Also, a problem I see with saying "Other public goods include music, software..." is that in our current world these things are typically /not /public goods because of how they're licensed. I'm wondering if, for the sake of clarity, albeit at the expense of simplicity, we should specify "free and open music, software..." or something like that? For example: "With a snowdrift we all need cleared, everyone gets the results whether or not they helped do the work! But who will step up to do the work, when nobody knows how many others will join them? That's the dilemma facing public goods. Other public goods include free and open music, software, movies, news, and research. The Snowdrift.coop crowdmatching system creates a viable way to provide sustainable crowdfunding for projects that create free and open public goods. You just make a pledge that says, "Each month, l'll chip in a little for each person who joins me!" Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for everyone! > In that script, the reason to reference the snowdrift is (A) to just > have a clear simply thing to visualize briefly and (B) to tie into the > name and the whole concept that we *will* discuss in many contexts > later, just not in this first version of a video. > > I'm not saying that I prefer the video to gloss over the snowdrift idea > so quickly, but I'm willing to accept that approach in order to just get > a quick first functional-enough video. > > A longer video explaining the ideas well, ideally both accurate-enough > to impart the gist of the academic ideas but also feel story-like > enough, would be a great thing to have eventually. > > I hope today to find time to write out the concerns I see and the > communication policy that is to be followed for communicating these ideas. > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/18/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Siepmann wrote: > >> The problem I have with the story is that anything a little too >> far-fetched is hard to accept. People don't have the experience of >> living in a town that has no tax-funded public services. Perhaps if the >> story were described as a rural road out of town where there's no mayor >> or such, then it's just the individuals in the houses in the >> neighborhood dealing with the challenge of cooperation without an >> existing government structure for support. > > True, but doesn't the same apply to the whole snowdrift / tolls & ads > idea in our cartoon illustrations? > No, I've even heard from real people who are like "yeah, I have that exact snowdrift dilemma in my neighborhood with people clearing the sidewalks" and such. Everyone has experienced toll-roads and billboards. These are not far-fetched ideas at all. The whole "some town off somewhere" etc. gives an othering feeling of a story happening to someone else. Psychologically, the more concrete details you give, the more the observer feels they are watching someone else and the more vague and general it is, the more they can readily see it as their situation and fill in the details with those that they know from their own experience. > I'm leaning toward the view that Bryan brought up in the meeting > yesterday (before you joined, Aaron) that we may be better off not > trying to use any reference to snowdrifts and instead changing our name > to crowdmatch.coop. I think trying to start with a snowdrift makes it > much harder than it otherwise would be to create a clear quick and > engaging introductory explanation. > While I understand the impetus to consider a name-change, I don't think it makes sense, and I don't think we'll be more successful by dropping the core principle explaining the challenge of public goods. For the video, we can omit the whole toll-road aspect as long as we frame it correctly. If the point is to just skip the meaningful context and get down to what we do (which has some merit), we can skip the large story and just say "With a snowdrift we all need cleared, everyone gets the results whether or not they helped do the work! That's the dilemma facing public goods. Other public include music, software…" In that script, the reason to reference the snowdrift is (A) to just have a clear simply thing to visualize briefly and (B) to tie into the name and the whole concept that we *will* discuss in many contexts later, just not in this first version of a video. I'm not saying that I prefer the video to gloss over the snowdrift idea so quickly, but I'm willing to accept that approach in order to just get a quick first functional-enough video. A longer video explaining the ideas well, ideally both accurate-enough to impart the gist of the academic ideas but also feel story-like enough, would be a great thing to have eventually. I hope today to find time to write out the concerns I see and the communication policy that is to be followed for communicating these ideas. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/17/2016 08:12 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > While I really appreciate the insights and perspective from the story > approach Michael presented, it feels far too contrived to me. I'd like > to see if we can capture some feel of the story-style narrative without > pushing the limits too hard. > > The problem I have with the story is that anything a little too > far-fetched is hard to accept. People don't have the experience of > living in a town that has no tax-funded public services. Perhaps if the > story were described as a rural road out of town where there's no mayor > or such, then it's just the individuals in the houses in the > neighborhood dealing with the challenge of cooperation without an > existing government structure for support. True, but doesn't the same apply to the whole snowdrift / tolls & ads idea in our cartoon illustrations? I'm leaning toward the view that Bryan brought up in the meeting yesterday (before you joined, Aaron) that we may be better off not trying to use any reference to snowdrifts and instead changing our name to crowdmatch.coop. I think trying to start with a snowdrift makes it much harder than it otherwise would be to create a clear quick and engaging introductory explanation. > At any rate, the big issue is that Robert (alone among everyone in this > regard, I think) feels that (A) we need to be able to talk to people > about "solving the snowdrift dilemma" and the idea that e.g. Patreon > doesn't "solve the snowdrift dilemma" etc. so have a core thing we get > people to understand as "the snowdrift dilemma" which itself is the core > cooperation dilemma, and so (B) any reference to toll-roads etc. > shouldn't be a factor that people come to associate with "the snowdrift > dilemma" because it brings up different dilemmas. > > I still do not agree with Robert's view, but I do think there's an > important question about where the toll-road issue comes in when > explaining things. So, I'm going to start a new thread on the discussion > list about this question. > > One last point about Michael's story: I don't like the wordings that say > "The same way it was hard for the townspeople to cooperate to clear the > snowdrift, it's hard for people to cooperate to fund creation of 'public > goods' that benefit us all." That and related wordings really push the > idea that it's just a metaphor. I would rather say "the same dilemma > applies to other public goods…" because that expresses that the > snowdrift dilemma is an example, not just a metaphor. > > If we say "the snowdrift dilemma is an example of a public goods > problem" that's just true completely and not a metaphor. When we say > "software funding faces the snowdrift dilemma", it becomes a metaphor. > > Anyway, if we *directly* apply crowdmatching to the snowdrift problem, > it's not a matching of volunteer time (although that's possible, it's > not what we're doing). Instead, it's just crowdmatched funding to pay > for the snow-plow. > > The accurate version of the story accepting a mayor and government is > either (A) "so we passed a new tax to fund snow-clearing in the future" > (that's it) or (B) "we tried to pass a new tax, but the people were > opposed to new taxes, so came up with the best voluntary alternative: we > set up a crowdmatching pledge where each of us agreed to pay a little > bit times the number of donors to our snow-clearing fund, and thus we > built up an adequate fund and were able to hire a snow-plow on our own > terms, which meant no toll gates and billboards!" > > Anyway, will post to discuss list my bigger thought. > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
While I really appreciate the insights and perspective from the story approach Michael presented, it feels far too contrived to me. I'd like to see if we can capture some feel of the story-style narrative without pushing the limits too hard. The problem I have with the story is that anything a little too far-fetched is hard to accept. People don't have the experience of living in a town that has no tax-funded public services. Perhaps if the story were described as a rural road out of town where there's no mayor or such, then it's just the individuals in the houses in the neighborhood dealing with the challenge of cooperation without an existing government structure for support. At any rate, the big issue is that Robert (alone among everyone in this regard, I think) feels that (A) we need to be able to talk to people about "solving the snowdrift dilemma" and the idea that e.g. Patreon doesn't "solve the snowdrift dilemma" etc. so have a core thing we get people to understand as "the snowdrift dilemma" which itself is the core cooperation dilemma, and so (B) any reference to toll-roads etc. shouldn't be a factor that people come to associate with "the snowdrift dilemma" because it brings up different dilemmas. I still do not agree with Robert's view, but I do think there's an important question about where the toll-road issue comes in when explaining things. So, I'm going to start a new thread on the discussion list about this question. One last point about Michael's story: I don't like the wordings that say "The same way it was hard for the townspeople to cooperate to clear the snowdrift, it's hard for people to cooperate to fund creation of 'public goods' that benefit us all." That and related wordings really push the idea that it's just a metaphor. I would rather say "the same dilemma applies to other public goods…" because that expresses that the snowdrift dilemma is an example, not just a metaphor. If we say "the snowdrift dilemma is an example of a public goods problem" that's just true completely and not a metaphor. When we say "software funding faces the snowdrift dilemma", it becomes a metaphor. Anyway, if we *directly* apply crowdmatching to the snowdrift problem, it's not a matching of volunteer time (although that's possible, it's not what we're doing). Instead, it's just crowdmatched funding to pay for the snow-plow. The accurate version of the story accepting a mayor and government is either (A) "so we passed a new tax to fund snow-clearing in the future" (that's it) or (B) "we tried to pass a new tax, but the people were opposed to new taxes, so came up with the best voluntary alternative: we set up a crowdmatching pledge where each of us agreed to pay a little bit times the number of donors to our snow-clearing fund, and thus we built up an adequate fund and were able to hire a snow-plow on our own terms, which meant no toll gates and billboards!" Anyway, will post to discuss list my bigger thought. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/17/2016 09:16 AM, mray wrote: > > As I mentioned in the meeting today, I think a more story-oriented, less academic approach would be preferable (though it would be good to have rigorous academic-style explanations available somewhere for those who want them, but probably text and images rather than video would be fine for that). I've drafted a script to illustrate what I mean. It's longish - reading it aloud took me just over 2 minutes - and I'm not suggesting it as a final draft, but more just something to illustrate a different approach that I think could be more engaging for a wider range of people. It has two voices - narrator and character, in order to combine a personal story approach with a third-person explanatory approach: ``` {Narrator voice} Here's a riddle for you: How is creating software, music, movies, etc, like clearing a snowdrift? {Character voice} “A few years ago, the only road out of our town was blocked by a snowdrift. If enough of us had worked together, we could have cleared it in no time. But I wasn't going to spend hours shoveling it on my own, or with just a few fellow shovelers. Seems everyone else felt the same way, so the snowdrift just sat there. Nobody could get in or out of town for days.” “Eventually the snowdrift melted and a slick sales guy drove into town. He offered us guaranteed snow removal in return for letting “Tolls R Us, Incorporated” charge tolls, track our driving habits, and plaster the roadside with 'smart' billboards that would show ads targeted to whoever was driving by.” “Nobody wanted tolls, surveillance, or billboards on our beautiful scenic road. But nobody wanted to be trapped by a snowdrift again, either.” “Just as our mayor was about to reluctantly sign on the dotted line, some kid yelled out 'Stop! There's a better way!'” “You know what? That kid's idea really worked! We call it /crowdmatching/. Now, anytime a snowdrift needs clearing, a crowd of people shows up, willing to spend 1 minute shoveling for every 10 people who shovel too. Last time, 100 people showed up. With 100 people each willing to shovel for 10 minutes, that poor snowdrift didn't stand a chance!” {Narrator voice} You might not be too concerned about snowdrifts, but we're all actually in a similar situation with digital goods like music, software, movies, news, and research. The same way it was hard for the townspeople to cooperate to clear the snowdrift, it's hard for people to cooperate to fund creation of 'public goods' that benefit us all. As a result, many good things don't get created at all, while others get encumbered with artificial restrictions, ads, and surveillance. The Snowdrift.coop crowdmatching system creates a viable way to provide sustainable crowdfunding for projects that create free and open public goods. You just make a pledge that says, "Each month, l'll chip in a little for each person who joins me!" Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for everyone! ``` signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
When this video is complete, I'd like to make it into a series of gifs with text, to post on imgur (which, issues with the platform aside, has a large community that I think might be sympathetic to our cause) or elsewhere. ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 16.10.2016 02:19, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> It is like saying: "we could all work together or – fly over the >> snowdrift with our private helicopters, but patrol is too expensive and >> little timmy lost the helicopter keys!" >> > > No, because the one and only snowdrift dilemma is "how do we get a clear > road (and generally keep roads clear)?" We have not deviated from that > by saying that taxes or toll-roads are ways to get clear roads. Your > helicopter example suggests alternative ways around the entire issue of > transportation. Our dilemma is fixed on a very specific setting and has a defined amount of possible outcomes. A dilemma is nothing but a matrix of outcomes. The toll-roads are not part of any such matrix. That makes them by definition not part of our *Dilemma* even if we stick them inside our *Metaphor*. Dilemma != Metaphor I agree that you can invent a dilemma where toll-roads are part of a matrix - but that clearly isn't ours. "How do we get a clear road (and generally keep roads clear)?" is a question, not a dilemma. It may end up in one, but to do so you'd have to narrow down its outcomes. You'd have many possible answers to choose from: - shovel away the snow - heat up roads so they don't get covered by snow - control weather so it does not snow that much - build a roof over the roads - ... - ...you get the picture You could only end up with a dilemma if you chose one path and map all its possible outcomes to a matrix. So, the toll-road is *disguised* as a new solution out of our dilemma, when in fact it is not. It is ONLY part of a separate decision that may lead to the dilemma. That decision had multiple outcomes that are not mapped in any matrix/dilemma: 1. shovel snow (face the dilemma) 2. pay tolls 3. do both (support CC and use DRM) 4. climb over the snowdrift and walk (use only CC) 5. ... 6. ... The word "dilemma" unfortunately is easily used for the whole Metaphor. This makes it harder to understand that billboards, cameras and toll-roads are no alternative "way out" of the dilemma. They are only a metaphor for why you may agree to accept the challange to deal with a dilemma. I see a solution to all this by first pointing out that we agree that free/sharable goods are something we all appreciate; Neither mentioning "dilemma" in THAT context, nor stuffing it into the same metaphor as our dilemma. Just setting a premise. Keeping it "snow free" so to speak. After that we can go FULL DILEMMA and care about shovels and snow! ... >> >>> 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. >>> >>> Yes, the nuanced truth is that it's a continuum from no support to full >>> potential, and we rarely are at either extreme. But that's too nuanced >>> for the video, unless we take the time to express this further (like >>> talking of some people who love shoveling snow). >>> >> >> I can see how talking about "releveant projects" vs. "projects" can make >> that difference already. As you said it does not have to transport all >> nuances. It is enough if we somehow limit participation instead of >> underlining our goal to be open for everything (which would be the >> expected default I guess) >> > > Right, but for the video, I think "relevant" is implied. Why would we be > talking about anything irrelevant? > Because all free work is relevant to most of us, as a concept, even the "non-relevant" work. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/15/2016 03:25 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 15.10.2016 18:12, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 04:04 AM, mray wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 can tweak those words, but we have to assert that there *do* exist >> un-shoveled piles of snow, effectively. We have to say that the problem >> remains unsolved. The truth, that the original text covered, is that >> there are two solutions already: taxes and toll-roads, and so >> acknowledging that while rejecting those as inadequate or incomplete >> solutions is necessary for complete clarity. >> > > My point is that using a metaphor means accepting its boundaries. > We can't only lean on the snowdrift dilemma as long as it fits, only to > quickly borrow from an entirely new, fabricated metaphor that has > NOTHING to do with it but fits our need. > I really fundamentally disagree. The metaphor of the snowdrift dilemma is the exact same metaphor as the one with the toll-road (with snowdrifts cleared because of the toll funding). Whether we discuss further angles of the metaphor or not is a question of how much time and what context. I have discussed this issue with hundreds of people, and you are the only one who ever indicated even the slightest concern about the toll-road not being completely obviously the same metaphor. I will assert that if we present the Snowdrift dilemma as "a road blocked by a snowdrift" and then describe "the ways we get roads cleared generally could be with taxes, or we could have toll roads", we could survey 1,000 people and my prediction is that zero or near-zero of them will have *any* concern that the toll-road idea is a different metaphor. Basically: I see you making the claim that this confuses things by making people think about broader contexts (not just "how do we clear the snow? i.e. fund this project?" but extended to "aren't there existing answers without crowdmatching? How do we usually get clear roads in reality? Taxes and toll-roads. And toll-roads as a solution to the snowdrift dilemma is like proprietary restrictions as a solution to funding creative works". You seem to be saying "we need to focus just on the core dilemma at all, and then present our solution and not get sidetracked by talking about how we compare to other solutions". If what I just wrote captures your perspective, I disagree completely. It is of utmost importance that we acknowledge and discuss the issues with alternative solutions. Why isn't Kickstarter good enough? Why aren't proprietary restrictions a good answer? How about taxes? Those are all real-world answers to the snowdrift dilemma, and we need to assert that they are inferior to crowdmatching. > I see what each part is supposed to do here, and why it matters. I have > an issue with us not being able to stick to ONE metaphor. It seems like > we owe it to our name that we can get along with only the snowdrift > dilemma. The "extension" of cameras, tolls and ads kind of "fits" > thematically but is IN FACT outside of the realm of what is known as the > snowdrift dilemma. > > It is like saying: "we could all work together or – fly over the > snowdrift with our private helicopters, but patrol is too expensive and > little timmy lost the helicopter keys!" > No, because the one and only snowdrift dilemma is "how do we get a clear road (and generally keep roads clear)?" We have not deviated from that by saying that taxes or toll-roads are ways to get clear roads. Your helicopter example suggests alternative ways around the entire issue of transportation. Besides, even in your helicopter example, there is still only one metaphor. So, if you want to express what is wrong with inventing additional angles like helicopters, you'll need to explain your objection without saying it is a new metaphor. It is not a new metaphor. Once you set up people looking at a road blocked by a snowdrift, anything that can exist within that same world is still the same metaphor. You could even say, "with climate change, we'll eventually have no snow" and it's the same metaphor. The only thing that would make a new metaphor would be "think of a road blocked by a snowdrift, that's the dilemma we
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 15.10.2016 18:12, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 10/15/2016 04:04 AM, mray wrote: >> >> >> 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 can tweak those words, but we have to assert that there *do* exist > un-shoveled piles of snow, effectively. We have to say that the problem > remains unsolved. The truth, that the original text covered, is that > there are two solutions already: taxes and toll-roads, and so > acknowledging that while rejecting those as inadequate or incomplete > solutions is necessary for complete clarity. > My point is that using a metaphor means accepting its boundaries. We can't only lean on the snowdrift dilemma as long as it fits, only to quickly borrow from an entirely new, fabricated metaphor that has NOTHING to do with it but fits our need. I see what each part is supposed to do here, and why it matters. I have an issue with us not being able to stick to ONE metaphor. It seems like we owe it to our name that we can get along with only the snowdrift dilemma. The "extension" of cameras, tolls and ads kind of "fits" thematically but is IN FACT outside of the realm of what is known as the snowdrift dilemma. It is like saying: "we could all work together or – fly over the snowdrift with our private helicopters, but patrol is too expensive and little timmy lost the helicopter keys!" Our extension weakens the impact strongly, too. It makes everything more complex and ambiguous. The one snowdrift dilemma has to be able to map all outcomes with its setting. Like: "We want *certain* free stuff to be *properly* funded by *many* people in a volunatary manner. THIS is way closer to merging everything in one dilemma where all other known projects would fail, but not us. > If we accept brevity, then it's just beyond the video to say "sure, it's > solved in some cases, but this dilemma describes the challenge and why > it *often* goes unsolved". > I think brevity can be applied by exactly stating what we see as the problem, and NOT telling what it is not. > Let me clarify: the statement I am making is that the problem describes > why it is hard to get people to cooperate and implies that it MAY and > DOES happen that *often* we do fail to get there. I'm not trying to > imply that it *always* happens that way. The Snowdrift Dilemma and > Public Goods Problem in general does not say that cooperation is > impossible, it just explains why we OFTEN fail. > I'm not sure I understand what you want to clarify. You seem to underline that the snowdrift-dilemma only makes a general assumption about human behaviour that can't be mapped to our case 1:1. And in order to map correctly we have to explain lots of things before we draw the right picture in peoples minds. My suggestion would be to even start out – right from the beginning – with a framed version of the snowdrift dilemma that fits our needs. So we don't have to introduce the "vanilla flavour" first, to then define ourselves through the differences to that "vanilla flavour". > >> 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. >> > > Yes, the nuanced truth is that it's a continuum from no support to full > potential, and we rarely are at either extreme. But that's too nuanced > for the video, unless we take the time to express this further (like > talking of some people who love shoveling snow). > I can see how talking about "releveant projects" vs. "projects" can make that difference already. As you said it does not have to transport all nuances. It is enough if we somehow limit participation instead of underlining our goal to be open for everything (which would be the expected default I guess) >> 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 = fe
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/15/2016 03:34 AM, William Hale wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:35:21 -0700 > 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. > > I think explaining the road imagery is important and should be > included. I mean we need to answer the "why" this stuff needs to be > fund somehow and that has always been a good hook. > I think we have to accept that my longer initial explanation is the good thorough one that answers all the common questions and clarifies like a great, clear lecture. We just won't have time to make it right now for the launch, so we'll go with the shorter one. >> >> That's an example of the PUBLIC GOODS PROBLEM where we fail to >> cooperate enough to support resources that benefit everyone. > > Only need to reference / keyword once. > >> >> 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'm not sure that "free from limitations" gets the point across. > >> >> 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. > > Free and open needs to be used only once and explained in a near by > sentence. > I really like it in the earlier sentence, so if we don't want the term twice, can you suggest a fully adequate substitute wording for one or the other case that still carries the meaning? I think if not, we accept there's some good about reinforcing it anyway. >> >> 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 would focus on two of the three or comma separate. This is the real > meat, maybe cut the cat around it? Don't reuse keywords and get it to > to like 30-45 seconds. > Could you give specific example of what you're suggesting here? > Otherwise, I liked the one you sent initially. It is pretty solid but > will take a fair amount of animation to make it look good before > attention wavers. > > That being said, if this launch is really targetting > the people who have been watching us for years, then this audio clip > may make a better impression. > > Thoughts? > >> >> Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for >> everyone! >> ``` >> > > Use the tagline here, "Crowdfunding for Public Goods". > > > I really do like the longer version and think it might hit home with > the long-term supporters. > > Mray, what do you think could be done to illustrate it? > > Wolftune and chreekat, be safe if the weather kicks up! > > > > ___ > Design mailing list > Design@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/15/2016 04:04 AM, mray wrote: > > > 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 can tweak those words, but we have to assert that there *do* exist un-shoveled piles of snow, effectively. We have to say that the problem remains unsolved. The truth, that the original text covered, is that there are two solutions already: taxes and toll-roads, and so acknowledging that while rejecting those as inadequate or incomplete solutions is necessary for complete clarity. If we accept brevity, then it's just beyond the video to say "sure, it's solved in some cases, but this dilemma describes the challenge and why it *often* goes unsolved". Let me clarify: the statement I am making is that the problem describes why it is hard to get people to cooperate and implies that it MAY and DOES happen that *often* we do fail to get there. I'm not trying to imply that it *always* happens that way. The Snowdrift Dilemma and Public Goods Problem in general does not say that cooperation is impossible, it just explains why we OFTEN fail. > 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. > Yes, the nuanced truth is that it's a continuum from no support to full potential, and we rarely are at either extreme. But that's too nuanced for the video, unless we take the time to express this further (like talking of some people who love shoveling snow). > 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 > donations). > This video is simply not going to cover the issue that Snowdrift.coop is best fit to the projects that have on-going needs and reach more than a very small niche audience. Those things will have to live elsewhere or be in later videos or pages or whatever. This is the video describing the core concept, not getting into nuances about which projects are the best-fit for our solution. > >> 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" > That's implied well-enough. If people think, "musicians and movie-makers can just get by on super tiny budgets", we're already dealing with a different sort of conversation. Most people don't actually think that a movie we'd care about or journalism we want can manage with tiny budgets. As far as we're concerned, the things we'd all wish to freely share are quality things, not shitty ones. >> 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 ;) > Is there a different wording we can use to express the issue? "Costly" maybe or "risky"? I like "hyped-up" here, although I'll admit that there's the argument that the forcing of people to do promotion can be a good thing. > >> 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
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
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 donations). > 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. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:35:21 -0700 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. I think explaining the road imagery is important and should be included. I mean we need to answer the "why" this stuff needs to be fund somehow and that has always been a good hook. > > That's an example of the PUBLIC GOODS PROBLEM where we fail to > cooperate enough to support resources that benefit everyone. Only need to reference / keyword once. > > 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'm not sure that "free from limitations" gets the point across. > > 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. Free and open needs to be used only once and explained in a near by sentence. > > 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 would focus on two of the three or comma separate. This is the real meat, maybe cut the cat around it? Don't reuse keywords and get it to to like 30-45 seconds. Otherwise, I liked the one you sent initially. It is pretty solid but will take a fair amount of animation to make it look good before attention wavers. That being said, if this launch is really targetting the people who have been watching us for years, then this audio clip may make a better impression. Thoughts? > > Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for > everyone! > ``` > Use the tagline here, "Crowdfunding for Public Goods". I really do like the longer version and think it might hit home with the long-term supporters. Mray, what do you think could be done to illustrate it? Wolftune and chreekat, be safe if the weather kicks up! -- Salt pgpzWmQ_tENW1.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
Okay, after a great long chat with Robert, I've written a new script. I'll record audio for it if I don't get feedback about it otherwise really soon. It accommodates a lot of concerns Robert has but ends up as the sort of wording I want overall: ``` 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. 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? 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. 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. Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for everyone! ``` signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
Intermission: We need a proper meeting for this, doing this the e-mail style isn't going to work. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/14/2016 12:05 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 14.10.2016 07:22, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> It's not perfect, but I think this is usable. I worked hard to capture >> every aspect that would cover all the important elements, avoid >> misunderstanding from people who might have the wrong guesses if things >> weren't quite clear, and achieves the basic idea of a compelling >> introduction from which people should jump to learning the details >> and/or signing up. >> >> Audio here: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/a3591afcb5/?raw=1 >> >> That's a direct download to a FLAC file >> >> Here's the script: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/9894866a59/?raw=1 >> >> Both are available to the design group in Seafile as well. >> >> The fundamental images I insist on having in the video are the ones that >> show the road blocked by snowdrift (it should be blocked enough to be >> clearly a problem, not just sorta snowy), the toll-road with cameras and >> billboards, and the vision we want: a nice clear road with trees and no >> billboards, no obstacles. >> >> I can easily imagine other illustrations or text shown in the video to >> accompany the narration, but the core thing is the road images and then >> just whatever else will fill out a functional video. >> >> We can always iterate or make updated versions later, but right now we >> need a first version that's good enough to actually put live and then >> start getting feedback on and be usable for our initial launch. >> >> Cheers, >> Aaron >> >> > > > Thanks Aaron! > > As expected this is quite a bit long which is why I take the freedom to > use only parts of the snippet. For now my plan is to us this: > As the person in charge of communications, it does step on my toes to freely edit the snippet. I want to discuss and clarify (and perhaps redo) in regards to feedback. The recording is under 2 minutes, and I included every element for a good reason. I understand that concision is a value, but I am going to insist that we not favor concision when it hurts the communication too much. > > Snowdtrift.coop has a new solution to help everyone cooperate in solving > the snowdrift dilemma. > > In our crowdmatching system, you don't risk volunteering while everyone > else freerides. Instead, you say, "I'll help, but I'm not doing it all > myself. I'll chip in a little more for each person who joins me!" > > And instead of one-time, hyped-up, all-or-nothing campaigns, we > calculate our crowdmatching donations monthly, combining mutual > assurance with sustainable funding and accountability. > > Snowdrift.coop will support any projects developing true public goods > under free/libre/open licenses with no extra gates, tolls, or > limitations. Join us in clearing the path to a better, free and open future! > > > > The snippet is easier to digest and covers a more realistic amount of > time/work for having something up in time. Any thoughts on this? > I agree that this is the conclusion, but it loses the entire premise. It loses the one most important element which is the image of a public road versus a toll road. I'd rather have a video that only had the premise, that just talked about the snowdrift dilemma and the roads and then have plain images and text somewhere to read about the Snowdrift.coop solution. I don't actually want either cut, of course. I think that these are all completely essential in the long-run: * "public goods" are infinitely sharable * examples for people to understand concretely (music, movies, software…) * toll-roads suck (and some image or sense of why this dilemma exists) * crowdmatching is the solution, sustainable, accountable In the immediate "what the hell is Snowdrift.coop, and why is it funding itself and not any other projects yet?" situation, the most concise we can go with is: "If we can't all cooperate to clear the roads we all share, we'll be stuck with just toll roads!" and the images to accompany that. So, here's my suggestion (I can make new recording once finalized): ``` If we can't all cooperate to maintain the roads we all share, we'll only have toll roads! To fund public goods, Snowdrift.coop introduces a new crowdmatching system where you don't risk volunteering while everyone else freerides. Instead, you say, "I'll help, but I'm not doing it all myself. I'll chip in a little more for each person who joins me!" And instead of one-time, hyped-up, all-or-nothing campaigns, we calculate our crowdmatching donations monthly, combining mutual assurance with sustainable funding and accountability. Snowdrift.coop will support any projects developing true public goods under free/libre/open licenses with no extra gates, tolls, or limitations. Join us in clearing the path to a better, free and open future! ``` And I can make sure the wiki content covers the pesky concerns about what really ma
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 14.10.2016 07:22, Aaron Wolf wrote: > It's not perfect, but I think this is usable. I worked hard to capture > every aspect that would cover all the important elements, avoid > misunderstanding from people who might have the wrong guesses if things > weren't quite clear, and achieves the basic idea of a compelling > introduction from which people should jump to learning the details > and/or signing up. > > Audio here: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/a3591afcb5/?raw=1 > > That's a direct download to a FLAC file > > Here's the script: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/9894866a59/?raw=1 > > Both are available to the design group in Seafile as well. > > The fundamental images I insist on having in the video are the ones that > show the road blocked by snowdrift (it should be blocked enough to be > clearly a problem, not just sorta snowy), the toll-road with cameras and > billboards, and the vision we want: a nice clear road with trees and no > billboards, no obstacles. > > I can easily imagine other illustrations or text shown in the video to > accompany the narration, but the core thing is the road images and then > just whatever else will fill out a functional video. > > We can always iterate or make updated versions later, but right now we > need a first version that's good enough to actually put live and then > start getting feedback on and be usable for our initial launch. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > Thanks Aaron! As expected this is quite a bit long which is why I take the freedom to use only parts of the snippet. For now my plan is to us this: Snowdtrift.coop has a new solution to help everyone cooperate in solving the snowdrift dilemma. In our crowdmatching system, you don't risk volunteering while everyone else freerides. Instead, you say, "I'll help, but I'm not doing it all myself. I'll chip in a little more for each person who joins me!" And instead of one-time, hyped-up, all-or-nothing campaigns, we calculate our crowdmatching donations monthly, combining mutual assurance with sustainable funding and accountability. Snowdrift.coop will support any projects developing true public goods under free/libre/open licenses with no extra gates, tolls, or limitations. Join us in clearing the path to a better, free and open future! The snippet is easier to digest and covers a more realistic amount of time/work for having something up in time. Any thoughts on this? Oh about the audio quality - i think there is room for improvement, I just don't know how much or how easy. For now only the content and timing is important, but in the end we might to turn some knobs there. Thanks for putting it together! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:22:35 -0700 Aaron Wolf wrote: > It's not perfect, but I think this is usable. I worked hard to capture > every aspect that would cover all the important elements, avoid > misunderstanding from people who might have the wrong guesses if > things weren't quite clear, and achieves the basic idea of a > compelling introduction from which people should jump to learning the > details and/or signing up. > > Audio here: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/a3591afcb5/?raw=1 > > That's a direct download to a FLAC file > > Here's the script: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/9894866a59/?raw=1 > > Both are available to the design group in Seafile as well. > > The fundamental images I insist on having in the video are the ones > that show the road blocked by snowdrift (it should be blocked enough > to be clearly a problem, not just sorta snowy), the toll-road with > cameras and billboards, and the vision we want: a nice clear road > with trees and no billboards, no obstacles. > > I can easily imagine other illustrations or text shown in the video to > accompany the narration, but the core thing is the road images and > then just whatever else will fill out a functional video. > > We can always iterate or make updated versions later, but right now we > need a first version that's good enough to actually put live and then > start getting feedback on and be usable for our initial launch. > > Cheers, > Aaron Seems very good, covers all of the important bases and utilizes current terminology. The only criticism would be that it seems to jump right in. A well done first pane that requires click-to-play should remedy this. Thanks for getting it out Aaron! -- Salt pgpBloBRCTrCh.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
[Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
It's not perfect, but I think this is usable. I worked hard to capture every aspect that would cover all the important elements, avoid misunderstanding from people who might have the wrong guesses if things weren't quite clear, and achieves the basic idea of a compelling introduction from which people should jump to learning the details and/or signing up. Audio here: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/a3591afcb5/?raw=1 That's a direct download to a FLAC file Here's the script: http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/9894866a59/?raw=1 Both are available to the design group in Seafile as well. The fundamental images I insist on having in the video are the ones that show the road blocked by snowdrift (it should be blocked enough to be clearly a problem, not just sorta snowy), the toll-road with cameras and billboards, and the vision we want: a nice clear road with trees and no billboards, no obstacles. I can easily imagine other illustrations or text shown in the video to accompany the narration, but the core thing is the road images and then just whatever else will fill out a functional video. We can always iterate or make updated versions later, but right now we need a first version that's good enough to actually put live and then start getting feedback on and be usable for our initial launch. Cheers, Aaron -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design