Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
I just wanted to let you know, that I'm still involved in one big project that ends on 12 of May. After that I will have time to get back to snowdrift. @Robert No I didn't notice, that you continued with the video. Actually that's cool! I now watched it and there are things i really like and others where I'm not sure. But I like the idea that we could work together on it. I guess it was a bit tricky to continue with my file. For example I used an extra plugin for the camera movments which is called "sniper". There's a tutorial out there that explains how it works. Maybe we could make one Jitsi session where I explain all the stuff I did in Blender so it's easier to also work on it. I guess you figured out most of it yourself by now, but I still think it would be helpful. Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland. ---- Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script Local Time: 24. April 2017 8:18 PM UTC Time: 24. April 2017 18:18 From: aa...@snowdrift.coop To: design@lists.snowdrift.coop On 04/23/2017 02:01 PM, J.wuensch wrote: > Sorry for no updates on my side! Last month was crazily busy. I work in > a young start-up company and we had to prepare A LOT of stuff for a > fair. So I had to pause working on the snowdrift video. I told Robert > but I think it would have been better to communicate it here on the > mailing list. > Unfortunately there's an additional ongoing freelance job in my > schedule. But I'm in the process of transferring it to someone else so > that I'll have more time to work on projects that matter more to me like > the snowdrift video. I'll definitively want to see this happen. > > That said, the missing progress on my side has little to do with > emphasize on finality but more with lack of time. Yes it's true, I did > three versions of the first half of the movie instead of doing one draft > for the whole. One simple reason is that I was unsure on how to > illustrate the last part without being confusing. So my priority was to > first find the overall animation style. Actually, iterating over > Robert's feedback didn't take that long. And with limited time in mind I > thought of doing part 2 after my stressful time. > > As far as I'm concerned, feedback on the visuals of this third version > (Animatic_v03.mp4) is already welcome. Maybe not on details as we can > care about them later on when we have a full working version. But more > the overall style. > > Thanks Aron for the new script! As soon as I find some time I'll try to > make a new version and we will see what I/we come up with to illustrate > those sentences. > > Btw: I'm totally fine with this kind of audio recording. It doesn't have > to be a highly polished final version. I just need some audio to animate > to. It can be finalized later when we see that the video and text is > working well together. It shouldn't be a problem to adjust the timing of > the animation to the final audio version later on. > > That's it for now, > Johannes > > Thanks Johannes, I agree with your points overall and glad to hear about the updates. I agree that some iteration to get to "see that the video and text is working well together" is what I want too. For whatever reasons that may be partly miscommunication, I felt pressured to get something "just right" before handing it over, which doesn't feel like the right approach. FWIW, Stephen gave me some feedback on the latest script that may lead to a new revision, but the recent one I posted is still the latest worth working on visuals for. I agree with you and Robert that avoiding the number-focused end stuff is better. I'm happier with the direction now. I think some iterative process back and forth between audio and visuals will get us to the best final result. ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 04/23/2017 02:01 PM, J.wuensch wrote: > Sorry for no updates on my side! Last month was crazily busy. I work in > a young start-up company and we had to prepare A LOT of stuff for a > fair. So I had to pause working on the snowdrift video. I told Robert > but I think it would have been better to communicate it here on the > mailing list. > Unfortunately there's an additional ongoing freelance job in my > schedule. But I'm in the process of transferring it to someone else so > that I'll have more time to work on projects that matter more to me like > the snowdrift video. I'll definitively want to see this happen. > > That said, the missing progress on my side has little to do with > emphasize on finality but more with lack of time. Yes it's true, I did > three versions of the first half of the movie instead of doing one draft > for the whole. One simple reason is that I was unsure on how to > illustrate the last part without being confusing. So my priority was to > first find the overall animation style. Actually, iterating over > Robert's feedback didn't take that long. And with limited time in mind I > thought of doing part 2 after my stressful time. > > As far as I'm concerned, feedback on the visuals of this third version > (Animatic_v03.mp4) is already welcome. Maybe not on details as we can > care about them later on when we have a full working version. But more > the overall style. > > Thanks Aron for the new script! As soon as I find some time I'll try to > make a new version and we will see what I/we come up with to illustrate > those sentences. > > Btw: I'm totally fine with this kind of audio recording. It doesn't have > to be a highly polished final version. I just need some audio to animate > to. It can be finalized later when we see that the video and text is > working well together. It shouldn't be a problem to adjust the timing of > the animation to the final audio version later on. > > That's it for now, > Johannes > > Thanks Johannes, I agree with your points overall and glad to hear about the updates. I agree that some iteration to get to "see that the video and text is working well together" is what I want too. For whatever reasons that may be partly miscommunication, I felt pressured to get something "just right" before handing it over, which doesn't feel like the right approach. FWIW, Stephen gave me some feedback on the latest script that may lead to a new revision, but the recent one I posted is still the latest worth working on visuals for. I agree with you and Robert that avoiding the number-focused end stuff is better. I'm happier with the direction now. I think some iterative process back and forth between audio and visuals will get us to the best final result. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 23.04.2017 23:01, J.wuensch wrote: > Sorry for no updates on my side! Last month was crazily busy. I work in a > young start-up company and we had to prepare A LOT of stuff for a fair. So I > had to pause working on the snowdrift video. I told Robert but I think it > would have been better to communicate it here on the mailing list. > Unfortunately there's an additional ongoing freelance job in my schedule. But > I'm in the process of transferring it to someone else so that I'll have more > time to work on projects that matter more to me like the snowdrift video. > I'll definitively want to see this happen. > > That said, the missing progress on my side has little to do with emphasize on > finality but more with lack of time. Yes it's true, I did three versions of > the first half of the movie instead of doing one draft for the whole. One > simple reason is that I was unsure on how to illustrate the last part without > being confusing. So my priority was to first find the overall animation > style. Actually, iterating over Robert's feedback didn't take that long. And > with limited time in mind I thought of doing part 2 after my stressful time. > > As far as I'm concerned, feedback on the visuals of this third version > (Animatic_v03.mp4) is already welcome. Maybe not on details as we can care > about them later on when we have a full working version. But more the overall > style. > > Thanks Aron for the new script! As soon as I find some time I'll try to make > a new version and we will see what I/we come up with to illustrate those > sentences. > > Btw: I'm totally fine with this kind of audio recording. It doesn't have to > be a highly polished final version. I just need some audio to animate to. It > can be finalized later when we see that the video and text is working well > together. It shouldn't be a problem to adjust the timing of the animation to > the final audio version later on. > > That's it for now, > Johannes > > > Johannes, did you check out my progress on the video? I took on where you left it and worked on it quite a bit. If you find time to come to the meeting we can have a chat about it there. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
Sorry for no updates on my side! Last month was crazily busy. I work in a young start-up company and we had to prepare A LOT of stuff for a fair. So I had to pause working on the snowdrift video. I told Robert but I think it would have been better to communicate it here on the mailing list. Unfortunately there's an additional ongoing freelance job in my schedule. But I'm in the process of transferring it to someone else so that I'll have more time to work on projects that matter more to me like the snowdrift video. I'll definitively want to see this happen. That said, the missing progress on my side has little to do with emphasize on finality but more with lack of time. Yes it's true, I did three versions of the first half of the movie instead of doing one draft for the whole. One simple reason is that I was unsure on how to illustrate the last part without being confusing. So my priority was to first find the overall animation style. Actually, iterating over Robert's feedback didn't take that long. And with limited time in mind I thought of doing part 2 after my stressful time. As far as I'm concerned, feedback on the visuals of this third version (Animatic_v03.mp4) is already welcome. Maybe not on details as we can care about them later on when we have a full working version. But more the overall style. Thanks Aron for the new script! As soon as I find some time I'll try to make a new version and we will see what I/we come up with to illustrate those sentences. Btw: I'm totally fine with this kind of audio recording. It doesn't have to be a highly polished final version. I just need some audio to animate to. It can be finalized later when we see that the video and text is working well together. It shouldn't be a problem to adjust the timing of the animation to the final audio version later on. That's it for now, Johannes___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
I am snipping wildly to respond to one point Stephen made: On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 03:17:38PM -0500, Stephen Michel wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >> >>On 12/01/2016 07:52 AM, mray wrote: >>> On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>> >>> Here is a new take: >>> * being discrete >>> * visualizing >>> * working with contrast >>> >>> my tentative 5c. >>> Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!... >>> – but – for *every* other patron of a project. >>> >>> A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!... >>> – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each. >>> >>> When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time. >> >> I like the concreteness of $1 for every 1000 patrons, but I'm >> concerned that it is easily misunderstood as meaning you donate zero >> until there are 1000 patrons, then $1 until there are 2000 patrons, >> then $2, etc. But I like that it's easier to relate to than a tenth >> of a cent. Maybe "1 cent for every 10 patrons" would be a happy >> medium here? That's arguably more accurate since of course we can't >> actually charge people in tenths of a cent increments. > > I actually had this same thought, when I was looking at the dashboard > and thinking that it's kind of odd to display the pledge level as .5 > cents and the project income as 2.5 cents, when actually at that level > no crowdmatch will happen. Actually, it does happen. After a crowdmatch at this level, you will "owe" the project 0.5 cents. You just won't be charged. In fact, you'll never be charged fractions of a cent. 0.5 is a really depressing number, but note that this would also be true for a crowdmatch of $4.128. Especially if the previous month was $1.023. After those two months, you would owe 4.128 + 1.023 = $5.151, and you would be charged $5.15 (plus fees). In other words, you crowdmatch those fractions of a cent, and they carry over. Of course, we're talking about the difference between $5.14 and $5.15 (shock!), but I don't think we need to change how it works. This really does match every last person. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: On 12/01/2016 07:52 AM, mray wrote: On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote: tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others to fund the public goods /you/ care about." tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build greater support for public goods." I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is: Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best wording for that. Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so. A short take that bridges to the following explanation: my tentative 4c. At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way; I think "empowers" and "/you/ care about" are important. I don't like "collaborate" because it sounds like something that would take /time/ that I cannot spare, vs. just a simple decision to share a small amount of my money. Overall I think 4b is much too abstract and vague - "build greater support for" is vague, as is the generic reference to "public goods". It sounds to me like something I might agree that some committee somewhere ought to do, but that doesn't sound particularly exciting or engaging to me personally. I also like "empowers" and "you care about". If we want to make it less wordy, I think we can drop "Our innovative platform" and just say "Snowdrift.coop" or "Crowdmatching". Aaron, can you say more about in what ways you're not happy with 4a? I think tweaking 4a a bit is a much more promising direction than anything like 4b. tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for the system." tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…" instead of the $1 / 1000 version We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at something while people wonder what it really is. As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from the get-go). One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects to support, and make a pledge…" Here is a new take: * being discrete * visualizing * working with contrast my tentative 5c. Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!... – but – for *every* other patron of a project. A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!... – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each. When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time. I like the concreteness of $1 for every 1000 patrons, but I'm concerned that it is easily misunderstood as meaning you donate zero until there are 1000 patrons, then $1 until there are 2000 patrons, then $2, etc. But I like that it's easier to relate to than a tenth of a cent. Maybe "1 cent for every 10 patrons" would be a happy medium here? That's arguably more accurate since of course we can't actually charge people in tenths of a cent increments. I actually had this same thought, when I was looking at the dashboard and thinking that it's kind of odd to display the pledge level as .5 cents and the project income as 2.5 cents, when actually at that level no crowdmatch will happen. It's off-topic for this discussion, but **IFF** it simplifies the code, we could consider making the mechanism actually function in discrete 1 cent intervals. Otherwise, 5a seems a bit wordy and complex, including the switch into first person. Here's one possible revision, with the "For example" sentence being optional, but helpful if it can fit I think: tentative 5d. "First you set an overall monthly budget. Then, for each project you want to support, you pledge to donate 1 cent per month for every 10 patrons who support that same project with you, as long
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 12/01/2016 07:52 AM, mray wrote: > On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others >> to fund the public goods /you/ care about." >> >> tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build >> greater support for public goods." >> >> I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is: >> Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting >> everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund >> public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but >> not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our >> platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best >> wording for that. >> > Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded > people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so. > A short take that bridges to the following explanation: > > my tentative 4c. > At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way; I think "empowers" and "/you/ care about" are important. I don't like "collaborate" because it sounds like something that would take /time/ that I cannot spare, vs. just a simple decision to share a small amount of my money. Overall I think 4b is much too abstract and vague - "build greater support for" is vague, as is the generic reference to "public goods". It sounds to me like something I might agree that some committee somewhere ought to do, but that doesn't sound particularly exciting or engaging to me personally. Aaron, can you say more about in what ways you're not happy with 4a? I think tweaking 4a a bit is a much more promising direction than anything like 4b. >> tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care >> about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And >> you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for >> the system." >> >> tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…" >> instead of the $1 / 1000 version >> >> We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron >> who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using >> concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far >> easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at >> something while people wonder what it really is. >> >> As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in >> the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you >> set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget >> gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of >> questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the >> clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop >> matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise >> will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from >> the get-go). >> >> One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects >> to support, and make a pledge…" >> > Here is a new take: > * being discrete > * visualizing > * working with contrast > > my tentative 5c. > Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!... > – but – for *every* other patron of a project. > > A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!... > – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each. > > When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time. I like the concreteness of $1 for every 1000 patrons, but I'm concerned that it is easily misunderstood as meaning you donate zero until there are 1000 patrons, then $1 until there are 2000 patrons, then $2, etc. But I like that it's easier to relate to than a tenth of a cent. Maybe "1 cent for every 10 patrons" would be a happy medium here? That's arguably more accurate since of course we can't actually charge people in tenths of a cent increments. Otherwise, 5a seems a bit wordy and complex, including the switch into first person. Here's one possible revision, with the "For example" sentence being optional, but helpful if it can fit I think: tentative 5d. "First you set an overall monthly budget. Then, for each project you want to support, you pledge to donate 1 cent per month for every 10 patrons who support that same project with you, as long as this fits within your budget. For example, if a project you support has 1,000 patrons next month, your donation will be $1." > >> tentative 6a. "We call this "crowdmatching", and with this system, our >> support grows together and is directed towards the most promising projects." >> >> tentative 6b. "This process, which we call *crowdmatching*, builds >> consensus and directs support to the most promising projects." >> >> tentative 6c. This *crowdmatching* approach means that all the patrons >> of a project reinforce each other, and it naturally builds consensus, >> directin
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote: > tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others > to fund the public goods /you/ care about." > > tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build > greater support for public goods." > > I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is: > Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting > everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund > public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but > not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our > platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best > wording for that. > Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so. A short take that bridges to the following explanation: my tentative 4c. At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way; > > tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care > about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And > you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for > the system." > > tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…" > instead of the $1 / 1000 version > > We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron > who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using > concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far > easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at > something while people wonder what it really is. > > As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in > the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you > set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget > gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of > questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the > clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop > matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise > will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from > the get-go). > > One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects > to support, and make a pledge…" > Here is a new take: * being discrete * visualizing * working with contrast my tentative 5c. Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!... – but – for *every* other patron of a project. A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!... – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each. When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time. > tentative 6a. "We call this "crowdmatching", and with this system, our > support grows together and is directed towards the most promising projects." > > tentative 6b. "This process, which we call *crowdmatching*, builds > consensus and directs support to the most promising projects." > > tentative 6c. This *crowdmatching* approach means that all the patrons > of a project reinforce each other, and it naturally builds consensus, > directing our support to the most promising projects." > > 6c is longer and wordier, but I like the feel and it really draws out > the feel and meaning the right way to me. my tentative 6d. We call this "crowdmatching"; it is a network effect that reaches consensus on what we support. > > FINAL 7. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > > Note: We can *maybe* tweak the FINAL lines before the actual production > is done but I don't want to discuss them until all lines are in the same > candidate-for-final state. > > I think discussing this in the group was way more productive than I ever can be alone. Hoping any of my takes help making a step forward... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
After all the chat yesterday, we brainstormed a lot of things. I'm still not satisfied with the final result, but much of it is done. My notes at this point. Where I marked "FINAL", there shall be no further discussion (unless changes to those lines are forced to happen because of changes to the non-final lines). Note: I changed the numbers from those at https://pad.riseup.net/p/Fo9LxmtDZcua in order to consolidate for this email. I hope that's not too confusing. I'm basically rejecting anything from the pad that isn't here. FINAL 1. "Things like software, music, movies, journalism, and research *can* be released as public goods." FINAL 2. "Then, *everyone* may use and share them freely, without limitations." FINAL 3. "But who will fund their production?" tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others to fund the public goods /you/ care about." tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build greater support for public goods." I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is: Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best wording for that. tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for the system." tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…" instead of the $1 / 1000 version We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at something while people wonder what it really is. As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from the get-go). One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects to support, and make a pledge…" tentative 6a. "We call this "crowdmatching", and with this system, our support grows together and is directed towards the most promising projects." tentative 6b. "This process, which we call *crowdmatching*, builds consensus and directs support to the most promising projects." tentative 6c. This *crowdmatching* approach means that all the patrons of a project reinforce each other, and it naturally builds consensus, directing our support to the most promising projects." 6c is longer and wordier, but I like the feel and it really draws out the feel and meaning the right way to me. FINAL 7. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! Note: We can *maybe* tweak the FINAL lines before the actual production is done but I don't want to discuss them until all lines are in the same candidate-for-final state. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 27.11.2016 04:37, William Hale wrote: > Hi All, > > I skimmed through the thread and have a few comments based on the most > recent script. Overall, I am happy that we dropped any deep > explaination and most of the snow analogy. Below is my suggestion > followed by the inline comments that built it. > > --- > > SUGGESTION/ > > When goods such as software, multimedia, and research are released > freely and for altrustic reasons, everyone is able to enjoy and benefit > from them. "altruistic" seems problematic. We are about paying people - hopefully even well. > > But who pays for this content to be developed and sustained? > > Snowdrift.coop's revolutionary crowdmatching platform empowers you to > join with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created. > > You pledge to donate a tiny amount, with a preset limit, every month, > for each patron who supports a project with you. > > Your donation is matched by others in the growing community, building > consensus that directs support to the most promising projects. "growing" is a tiny bit too optimistic right now. We are just starting - so "growing" probably means we hope the best. > > Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > > /SUGGESTION > I think your suggestion sounds casual and more approaching, I still prefer Michaels for its clarity, though. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
Quick note: glad to see everyone weighing in. I plan to think through this soon and consolidate ideas. In short: I don't like losing the snowdrift dilemma concept entirely, but I think it's the right direction. We'll keep "clearing the path…" which can be illustrated with snowdrift / road visuals. This is all about hinting about ideas that will be explained more later. We really need to embrace "public goods" without hesitation, and we'd rather people say "what qualifies as public goods?" or even "what are public goods?" than that they get confused with the wrong impressions. I'd rather viewers leave the video with questions and motivation to find answers than that they leave the video thinking they understand things fully (since they won't actually). If it's too vague, viewers won't feel respected or that they even have clear enough questions, but it's good for them to think they got the *general* idea but have questions. Again, I'll weigh in with some further thoughts and another script draft soon. Nobody needs to stop discussing and wait for me though, just wanted to mention these thoughts briefly. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
Hi All, I skimmed through the thread and have a few comments based on the most recent script. Overall, I am happy that we dropped any deep explaination and most of the snow analogy. Below is my suggestion followed by the inline comments that built it. --- SUGGESTION/ When goods such as software, multimedia, and research are released freely and for altrustic reasons, everyone is able to enjoy and benefit from them. But who pays for this content to be developed and sustained? Snowdrift.coop's revolutionary crowdmatching platform empowers you to join with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created. You pledge to donate a tiny amount, with a preset limit, every month, for each patron who supports a project with you. Your donation is matched by others in the growing community, building consensus that directs support to the most promising projects. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! /SUGGESTION --- On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:56:28 -0500 Stephen Michel wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Michael Siepmann > wrote: > > > > > > SUGGESTION/ > > > > When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are > > released as > > public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations. Reduce list, hopefully to three items, e.g. software, multimedia, and research. Avoid using the term public goods more than once, and probably not up front as it is somewhat technical. Maybe use the word altruism. > > > > > But who will pay for them to be created? But who pays for this content to be created and sustained? > > > > > Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to > > join > > with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created. pioneering -> innovative or revolutionary > > > > > You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who > > supports a project with you, within a budget you control. each month -> every month Connect budget with outgoing money, create a list that draws a line from pocketbook to project. > > > > > > > Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building > > consensus that directs support to the most promising projects. the rest of the community -> others in a growing community > > > > > Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! Can "Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!" be a new 'official' tagline? I think it sounds rather good. > > Does "clearing the path" still make sense given that we don't mention > a snowdrift any more? I don't want to strip it completely if possible, the novelty is a good thing. > > > > > /SUGGESTION --- Welcome Johannes! Hope that you can make an upcoming voice chat, Mondays at 20:00 UTC. We will most likely be using Mumble and an Etherpad. -- William Hale aka Salt Community Director Snowdrift.coop "Crowdmatching for Public Goods" ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: I'm thinking that in this super-short intro, it would be better to omit any reference to a snowdrift. It's just too confusing, not necessary enough, and doesn't help to engage people right away. People can find out why we're called Snowdrift.coop later, but here they just need to know, understand, and feel positive about and interested in the core of what Snowdrift.coop is about. As to the "free" qualifier discussion, I think it's absolutely critical to remember that the overwhelming majority of the world has not the faintest idea that a phrase like "free music" ever means anything other than "music you don't have to pay for". Very +1. When I talk with people about snowdrift, my biggest challenge is usually breaking them out of this assumption that music or software MUST be copyrighted, or if it isn't, the artist/programmer must not be getting paid for it. It's not relevant here, but the best tool I have found so far is to liken it to contract photography. I contract with a professional photographer to get my picture taken, they get paid up front and they're happy with that money for the work, and then I'm free to reproduce and share the photos however I want (sometimes photographers keep the copyright, but not all do, and it's enough that people understand this is a business model that works better). Here's an idea omitting the Snowdrift reference. I've done quite a bit of other editing which I can explain if that would be helpful. I also like this script. SUGGESTION/ When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are released as public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations. Does "public goods" have enough recognition that people will know what we're talking about with just that? What about "unrestricted public goods"? Pros: Clarity. Cons: Redundancy. No strong opinion, just wanted to put it out there. But who will pay for them to be created? Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to join with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created. You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who supports a project with you, within a budget you control. Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building consensus that directs support to the most promising projects. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! Does "clearing the path" still make sense given that we don't mention a snowdrift any more? /SUGGESTION Both of these are nitpicks, make of them what you will. Excitement building, Stephen ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
I really like this script and I also think that this works better for the short version. Well done Michael! Original Message Subject: Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script Local Time: November 26, 2016 5:11 AM UTC Time: November 26, 2016 4:11 AM From: m...@techdesignpsych.com To: design@lists.snowdrift.coop On 11/25/2016 10:17 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > >>> With the updated first line: >>> >>> SCRIPT2C/ >>> >>> The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all >>> benefit. So, who will do the work? >>> >>> This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, >>> news, research, and so on… >>> >>> That's why we developed crowdmatching! >>> >>> At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who >>> supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the >>> numbers of patrons and your budget limit. >>> >>> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we >>> build consensus around the most promising projects. >>> >>> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! >>> >>> /SCRIPT2C >>> >>> We can see if others have further feedback, but I think we should >>> already start storyboarding with this. >>> I'm thinking that in this super-short intro, it would be better to omit any reference to a snowdrift. It's just too confusing, not necessary enough, and doesn't help to engage people right away. People can find out why we're called Snowdrift.coop later, but here they just need to know, understand, and feel positive about and interested in the core of what Snowdrift.coop is about. As to the "free" qualifier discussion, I think it's absolutely critical to remember that the overwhelming majority of the world has not the faintest idea that a phrase like "free music" ever means anything other than "music you don't have to pay for". Here's an idea omitting the Snowdrift reference. I've done quite a bit of other editing which I can explain if that would be helpful. SUGGESTION/ When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are released as public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations. But who will pay for them to be created? Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to join with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created. You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who supports a project with you, within a budget you control. Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building consensus that directs support to the most promising projects. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! /SUGGESTION ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
Hm, ok, I understand. I think I now know why I had the feeling there was something missing and why I added in those questions. The first section ends with: "So, who will do the work?" For me that somehow implies that the problem is to find the people doing the work. But that's not really the problem. I think there are enough people who can and would like to do the work. The actual problem which snowdrift tries to solve is a fair compensation/support for those people so they can go on doing it. In short: cooperation. And that's something not mentioned in the first two sections. It doesn't talk about any support. The solution proposed is crowdmatching which is essentially bringing people together to support the creators. If our solution is organizing support for the creators, I guess the problem is also related to support. But it's not mentioned. Now with those questions I had added in it was obvious that it is going to be about support and donations. And with this in mind I personally think it's easier to get the rest. Well that's just my thoughts. It's really damn hard to write such a short script and get everything important in there! :) And yes you are right, I think the visuals with logos can definitively help. ---- Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script Local Time: November 25, 2016 6:17 PM UTC Time: November 25, 2016 5:17 PM From: aa...@snowdrift.coop To: design@lists.snowdrift.coop On 11/25/2016 01:28 AM, J.wuensch wrote: > "This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, > news, research, and so on…" > > I'm with mray. I think it would be good to put "free" in there. Because > that's what snowdrift.coop is all about. To support the people that > create stuff which is freely available to everyone. Like the sentence is > now, the "public" is clearly related to the "problem" and not > necessarily to music, software and so on... Of course one can make that > connection, but it's not said, that everyone will get it that quick. I > mean maybe they never had anything to do with this stuff and hear all > that for the first time. > I just think it's important to emphasize what we want to support. Yes, > the word "free" can be a bit confusing, but as you already said, it gets > further explained on the homepage, so I think it's ok to go here with > "free". Maybe even mention the support for the creators and the > distribution on the supporters, because that's essentially what this > platform is going to organize. I've done it with two questions that > should help to make it not too abstract. We should keep in mind that > none of the people out there has ever heard crowdmatching and thus it's > kind of abstract. I remember when I first stumbled across snowdrift.coop > there was that word crowdmatching and I didn't really get what it was > about. I took me a while to get the concept. > > So here is my suggestion. It's a bit longer but for me it's important > and I think it's worth the extra seconds: > > This public goods problem can also apply to freely available music, > software, movies, > news, research, and so on… But how to support those creators in a > sustainable way? And how do we fairly distribute the donations across > the supporters? > > That's why we developed > > So that's my feedback. All in all I like it! Good Job Aron! > I like the idea, but I still lean against putting in these qualifiers into the script. I'm just not going to be happy with the partial, inadequate clarification. And we're definitely going to go over the 45 second mark with those extra questions. I think that has to wait for a longer video. Maybe the visuals can help? We could put the text "free/libre/open" and creative-commons logos and GNU logos and such in the video when we talk about the categories of public goods… thoughts? > cheers, > Johannes > > > Sent from ProtonMail <https://protonmail.ch>, encrypted email based in > Switzerland. > > >> Original Message >> Subject: Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script >> Local Time: November 24, 2016 10:20 PM >> UTC Time: November 24, 2016 9:20 PM >> From: aa...@snowdrift.coop >> To: design@lists.snowdrift.coop >> >> n 11/24/2016 12:06 PM, mray wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 24.11.2016 20:46, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >> SCRIPT2B/ >> >> >> >> The snowdrift dilemma: Whether or not we help, we all benefit from >> >> clearing the public road. So, who will do the work? >> > >> > We actually benefit from a clear road - n
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 26.11.2016 05:11, Michael Siepmann wrote: > > On 11/25/2016 10:17 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> With the updated first line: SCRIPT2C/ The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all benefit. So, who will do the work? This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on… That's why we developed crowdmatching! At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of patrons and your budget limit. This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we build consensus around the most promising projects. Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! /SCRIPT2C We can see if others have further feedback, but I think we should already start storyboarding with this. > > I'm thinking that in this super-short intro, it would be better to omit > any reference to a snowdrift. It's just too confusing, not necessary > enough, and doesn't help to engage people right away. People can find > out why we're called Snowdrift.coop later, but here they just need to > know, understand, and feel positive about and interested in the core of > what Snowdrift.coop is about. > > As to the "free" qualifier discussion, I think it's absolutely critical > to remember that the overwhelming majority of the world has not the > faintest idea that a phrase like "free music" ever means anything other > than "music you don't have to pay for". > > Here's an idea omitting the Snowdrift reference. I've done quite a bit > of other editing which I can explain if that would be helpful. > > SUGGESTION/ > > When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are released as > public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations. > > But who will pay for them to be created? > > Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to join > with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created. > > You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who > supports a project with you, within a budget you control. > > Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building > consensus that directs support to the most promising projects. > > Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > > /SUGGESTION > I think this does work better for this very short format. Not losing time in explaining a words heritage frees time to explain the core idea. I think this enhances Aarons text in a concise way. Well done! I like how this text fragment gets brushed and brushed like a raw diamond. :) I also like the idea of a more detailed video taking its time to address the whole snowdrift dilemma explanation instead of brushing over it really quick. It alone would justify to motivate people to watch more videos. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 11/25/2016 10:17 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > >>> With the updated first line: >>> >>> SCRIPT2C/ >>> >>> The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all >>> benefit. So, who will do the work? >>> >>> This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, >>> news, research, and so on… >>> >>> That's why we developed crowdmatching! >>> >>> At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who >>> supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the >>> numbers of patrons and your budget limit. >>> >>> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we >>> build consensus around the most promising projects. >>> >>> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! >>> >>> /SCRIPT2C >>> >>> We can see if others have further feedback, but I think we should >>> already start storyboarding with this. >>> I'm thinking that in this super-short intro, it would be better to omit any reference to a snowdrift. It's just too confusing, not necessary enough, and doesn't help to engage people right away. People can find out why we're called Snowdrift.coop later, but here they just need to know, understand, and feel positive about and interested in the core of what Snowdrift.coop is about. As to the "free" qualifier discussion, I think it's absolutely critical to remember that the overwhelming majority of the world has not the faintest idea that a phrase like "free music" ever means anything other than "music you don't have to pay for". Here's an idea omitting the Snowdrift reference. I've done quite a bit of other editing which I can explain if that would be helpful. SUGGESTION/ When music, software, movies, news, research, and so on, are released as public goods, everyone can enjoy them freely, without limitations. But who will pay for them to be created? Snowdrift.coop's pioneering crowdmatching platform empowers you to join with others to fund the public goods /you/ want created. You pledge to donate a tiny amount each month for each patron who supports a project with you, within a budget you control. Your donation is matched by the rest of the community, building consensus that directs support to the most promising projects. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! /SUGGESTION signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 11/25/2016 01:28 AM, J.wuensch wrote: > "This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, > news, research, and so on…" > > I'm with mray. I think it would be good to put "free" in there. Because > that's what snowdrift.coop is all about. To support the people that > create stuff which is freely available to everyone. Like the sentence is > now, the "public" is clearly related to the "problem" and not > necessarily to music, software and so on... Of course one can make that > connection, but it's not said, that everyone will get it that quick. I > mean maybe they never had anything to do with this stuff and hear all > that for the first time. > I just think it's important to emphasize what we want to support. Yes, > the word "free" can be a bit confusing, but as you already said, it gets > further explained on the homepage, so I think it's ok to go here with > "free". Maybe even mention the support for the creators and the > distribution on the supporters, because that's essentially what this > platform is going to organize. I've done it with two questions that > should help to make it not too abstract. We should keep in mind that > none of the people out there has ever heard crowdmatching and thus it's > kind of abstract. I remember when I first stumbled across snowdrift.coop > there was that word crowdmatching and I didn't really get what it was > about. I took me a while to get the concept. > > So here is my suggestion. It's a bit longer but for me it's important > and I think it's worth the extra seconds: > > This public goods problem can also apply to freely available music, > software, movies, > news, research, and so on… But how to support those creators in a > sustainable way? And how do we fairly distribute the donations across > the supporters? > > That's why we developed > > So that's my feedback. All in all I like it! Good Job Aron! > I like the idea, but I still lean against putting in these qualifiers into the script. I'm just not going to be happy with the partial, inadequate clarification. And we're definitely going to go over the 45 second mark with those extra questions. I think that has to wait for a longer video. Maybe the visuals can help? We could put the text "free/libre/open" and creative-commons logos and GNU logos and such in the video when we talk about the categories of public goods… thoughts? > cheers, > Johannes > > > Sent from ProtonMail <https://protonmail.ch>, encrypted email based in > Switzerland. > > >> Original Message >> Subject: Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script >> Local Time: November 24, 2016 10:20 PM >> UTC Time: November 24, 2016 9:20 PM >> From: aa...@snowdrift.coop >> To: design@lists.snowdrift.coop >> >> n 11/24/2016 12:06 PM, mray wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 24.11.2016 20:46, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >> SCRIPT2B/ >> >> >> >> The snowdrift dilemma: Whether or not we help, we all benefit from >> >> clearing the public road. So, who will do the work? >> > >> > We actually benefit from a clear road - not from its clearing. >> > >> >> Okay, rewrote to: >> >> "The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all >> benefit. So, who will do the work?" >> >> That's shorter and more precise too. More obvious that the snowdrift is >> the thing to clear. >> >> >> >> >> This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, >> >> news, research, and so on… >> > >> > You are juggling concepts here, in the midst of all this it is not clear >> > at all that you are talking about "public music", "public software", >> >> > >> > Are you sure there is no time to throw in the word "free" ? >> > >> >> I think "free" without "free/libre/open" is confusing, "free/libre/open" >> is jargonny, and "free and open" emphasizes the misinterpretation of >> "free" as "gratis". >> >> I think "public music" is true but not needed to be said in a sentence >> that already references public goods. We're saying "it CAN apply" and >> will say outside of the video that it applies only in the case of true >> public music i.e. free/libre/open that is also of the caliber that it >> requires serious investment. We can't get into it her
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
"This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on…" I'm with mray. I think it would be good to put "free" in there. Because that's what snowdrift.coop is all about. To support the people that create stuff which is freely available to everyone. Like the sentence is now, the "public" is clearly related to the "problem" and not necessarily to music, software and so on... Of course one can make that connection, but it's not said, that everyone will get it that quick. I mean maybe they never had anything to do with this stuff and hear all that for the first time. I just think it's important to emphasize what we want to support. Yes, the word "free" can be a bit confusing, but as you already said, it gets further explained on the homepage, so I think it's ok to go here with "free". Maybe even mention the support for the creators and the distribution on the supporters, because that's essentially what this platform is going to organize. I've done it with two questions that should help to make it not too abstract. We should keep in mind that none of the people out there has ever heard crowdmatching and thus it's kind of abstract. I remember when I first stumbled across snowdrift.coop there was that word crowdmatching and I didn't really get what it was about. I took me a while to get the concept. So here is my suggestion. It's a bit longer but for me it's important and I think it's worth the extra seconds: This public goods problem can also apply to freely available music, software, movies, news, research, and so on… But how to support those creators in a sustainable way? And how do we fairly distribute the donations across the supporters? That's why we developed So that's my feedback. All in all I like it! Good Job Aron! cheers, Johannes Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland. Original Message Subject: Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script Local Time: November 24, 2016 10:20 PM UTC Time: November 24, 2016 9:20 PM From: aa...@snowdrift.coop To: design@lists.snowdrift.coop n 11/24/2016 12:06 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 24.11.2016 20:46, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> SCRIPT2B/ >> >> The snowdrift dilemma: Whether or not we help, we all benefit from >> clearing the public road. So, who will do the work? > > We actually benefit from a clear road - not from its clearing. > Okay, rewrote to: "The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all benefit. So, who will do the work?" That's shorter and more precise too. More obvious that the snowdrift is the thing to clear. >> >> This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, >> news, research, and so on… > > You are juggling concepts here, in the midst of all this it is not clear > at all that you are talking about "public music", "public software", > > Are you sure there is no time to throw in the word "free" ? > I think "free" without "free/libre/open" is confusing, "free/libre/open" is jargonny, and "free and open" emphasizes the misinterpretation of "free" as "gratis". I think "public music" is true but not needed to be said in a sentence that already references public goods. We're saying "it CAN apply" and will say outside of the video that it applies only in the case of true public music i.e. free/libre/open that is also of the caliber that it requires serious investment. We can't get into it here. We're just saying "this is about public goods, and keep in mind these categories of works" >> >> That's why we developed crowdmatching! >> >> At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who >> supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the >> numbers of patrons and your budget limit. >> >> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we >> build consensus around the most promising projects. >> >> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! >> >> /SCRIPT2B > > > looks great. getting curious where and how you choose to emphasize the > sentences :D > > With the updated first line: SCRIPT2C/ The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all benefit. So, who will do the work? This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on… That's why we developed crowdmatching! At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a project with you. We calculate donations
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
n 11/24/2016 12:06 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 24.11.2016 20:46, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> SCRIPT2B/ >> >> The snowdrift dilemma: Whether or not we help, we all benefit from >> clearing the public road. So, who will do the work? > > We actually benefit from a clear road - not from its clearing. > Okay, rewrote to: "The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all benefit. So, who will do the work?" That's shorter and more precise too. More obvious that the snowdrift is the thing to clear. >> >> This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, >> news, research, and so on… > > You are juggling concepts here, in the midst of all this it is not clear > at all that you are talking about "public music", "public software", > > Are you sure there is no time to throw in the word "free" ? > I think "free" without "free/libre/open" is confusing, "free/libre/open" is jargonny, and "free and open" emphasizes the misinterpretation of "free" as "gratis". I think "public music" is true but not needed to be said in a sentence that already references public goods. We're saying "it CAN apply" and will say outside of the video that it applies only in the case of true public music i.e. free/libre/open that is also of the caliber that it requires serious investment. We can't get into it here. We're just saying "this is about public goods, and keep in mind these categories of works" >> >> That's why we developed crowdmatching! >> >> At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who >> supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the >> numbers of patrons and your budget limit. >> >> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we >> build consensus around the most promising projects. >> >> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! >> >> /SCRIPT2B > > > looks great. getting curious where and how you choose to emphasize the > sentences :D > > With the updated first line: SCRIPT2C/ The snowdrift dilemma: Regardless of who clears the snow, we all benefit. So, who will do the work? This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on… That's why we developed crowdmatching! At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of patrons and your budget limit. This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we build consensus around the most promising projects. Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! /SCRIPT2C We can see if others have further feedback, but I think we should already start storyboarding with this. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 11/24/2016 11:47 AM, Bryan Richter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:10:47AM -0500, Stephen Michel wrote: >> >> On November 24, 2016 4:52:08 AM EST, mray wrote: >>> >>> Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit >>> coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the >>> credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so >>> it does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind >>> all this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with >>> naming our name and slogan? >> >> No opinion. > > We can't do this, because we aren't a non-profit, nor are we a co-op. > Those are outstanding goals. And after talking to an expert at SeaGL, > I sort of get the feeling they require a lot of rework to become > achievable. I agree with the concern, but you seem to be misunderstanding the legal status. We are incorporated as a non-profit in the state of Michigan currently. Whether we reincorporate or otherwise deal with our situation in other regards is a challenging issue. To some extent, we have OSI as a fiscal sponsor, but that's complex. But please be completely clear: 501(c)(3) is not the definition of "non-profit". Non-profit is a STATE-level designation, and we did indeed file Articles under that designation. But since we're still forming, our status is in a legally uncomfortable situation to be clear. We need to finalize our structure and get legal help on getting it all in place. Are we a co-op? Well, we did file articles expressing our intention and our name as a co-op. Do we operate as a co-op? Sorta not really in that we don't have our bylaws in place. That doesn't make us a non-co-op in that we are something other than a co-op. We are a co-op in progress, a group of volunteers and contractors working on building a co-op. The legally safe wording is stuff like "we're building a non-profit co-op" as opposed to "we are a non-profit co-op". There's no RE-work to achieve our legal goals, there's just WORK because we didn't put in place anything bad that sets us up against these goals, we are just lacking having the necessary things fully in place, period. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 24.11.2016 20:46, Aaron Wolf wrote: > SCRIPT2B/ > > The snowdrift dilemma: Whether or not we help, we all benefit from > clearing the public road. So, who will do the work? We actually benefit from a clear road - not from its clearing. > > This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, > news, research, and so on… You are juggling concepts here, in the midst of all this it is not clear at all that you are talking about "public music", "public software", Are you sure there is no time to throw in the word "free" ? > > That's why we developed crowdmatching! > > At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who > supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the > numbers of patrons and your budget limit. > > This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we > build consensus around the most promising projects. > > Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > > /SCRIPT2B looks great. getting curious where and how you choose to emphasize the sentences :D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:10:47AM -0500, Stephen Michel wrote: > > On November 24, 2016 4:52:08 AM EST, mray wrote: > > > >Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit > >coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the > >credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so > >it does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind > >all this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with > >naming our name and slogan? > > No opinion. We can't do this, because we aren't a non-profit, nor are we a co-op. Those are outstanding goals. And after talking to an expert at SeaGL, I sort of get the feeling they require a lot of rework to become achievable. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
Minor tweak (and cleaned up the long quotes) SCRIPT2B/ The snowdrift dilemma: Whether or not we help, we all benefit from clearing the public road. So, who will do the work? This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on… That's why we developed crowdmatching! At Snowdrift.coop, you pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of patrons and your budget limit. This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we build consensus around the most promising projects. Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! /SCRIPT2B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 11/24/2016 01:52 AM, mray wrote: > > Thank you Aaron! > I like the script. > > >> The snowdrift dilemma asks: who will clear the public road when we all >> get the results whether or not we help? > > * "get the results" sounds very neutral. "benefit from it" would a > positive connotation to what we are about. > Agreed > >> The same issue applies to funding public goods such as music, software, >> movies, news, research, and so on… > > * music only *can* be an example. I think we need to say that free > music, free software... are examples of public goods. > Right, that was in the longer scripts, but I figured out that I can use a certain inflection in the audio to imply this somewhat. It's not perfect, but thought about the middle ground of "public goods which can include…" I want to not take any time to clarify that roads, music, software MAY be public goods but not necessarily. We just don't have time to clarify any of that. Here's my proposal now: "This public goods problem can also apply to music, software, movies, news, research, and so on…" > >> So, Snowdrift.coop helps coordinate everyone with our new crowdmatching >> system! > > * "So" is a place-filler and could be omitted. > Nope, it's too jarring without a transition. It could be "But we have a solution…" or "To address this," or that sort of thing, and "So," is the shortest possible of that. There must be some transition from "problem!" to "solution!" that indicates that we aren't still describing the problem. Otherwise, listeners have to reevaluate the sentence part-way through when they realize this is now talking about the solution. In this context, "So," is not in any sense filler, just like the word "like" is a meaningful word even though some people use it as filler. I could try alternatives to "So," but they will all be longer. > * "helps" suggests we only do part of the all, but since every > participant is part of "us" that isn't true. We *DO* coordinate, we > don't just help. Let's omit "help" therefore, too. I'm okay removing "help" here, but for reference, the intent was to avoid claiming that we necessarily succeed at full coordination of everyone. > > * I feel awkward about calling it "our crowdmatching". We should > fundamentally claim the term and only call it "crowdmatching". > "Our" suggests there might be other crowdmatchings. > I had to completely rewrite that section in order to not have that element, but I agree with the concern. > >> You just pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a >> project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of >> patrons and your budget limit. > > * "just" in an explanation from a biased source almost never turns out > to be true. "just click here" to "just compile the code" and other > variations have conditioned me strongly. To me it is a promise but > rarely delivers. Even when it fits it's still loaded. And this one is no > exception :P > > In this case it is a misleading combination of "just ... a little bit" > when we actually describe a system that is designed to be a "controlled > thermonuclear donation chain reaction". XD agreed > > Maybe start with introducing the limit first to not have to tip toe > around the frightening money part? I don't want to emphasize that because (A) we don't even have the limit functioning yet! and (B) the limit isn't really the point, I just want it included so people don't wonder if it exists. > > >> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we >> build consensus around the most promising projects. > > * Consensus is built indirectly, we shouldn't let people suggest > somebody is directly involved in creating consensus. So a passive form > like "consensus gets built" might fit better. > I agree with the sentiment, but passive voice just sounds bad here to me. > >> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > > * I want to nit pick on every part so I have to write something here, > too. Done. > > > > I like it. > > > Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit > coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the > credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so it > does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind all > this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with naming our > name and slogan? > > I wish we could do that, but our legal status isn't set in stone, so it's best if we not try too hard at this. I do respect that emphasizing that this is a FLO community project and not a VC-backed exploitation system is a BIG deal though… I thought about "Come join our non-profit co-op and us help clear the path to a free and open future!" but it seems crammed in there still. I think we'll have to signal our non-profit and community focus in other places and not try to have it in the video besides the .coop domain. So, here's where I'm a
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 11/24/2016 06:10 AM, Stephen Michel wrote: > > I have feedback on the script and want to respond but probably can't today since it's Thanksgiving. Hope to by sometime tomorrow. ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 11/24/2016 06:33 AM, mray wrote: > On 24.11.2016 14:10, Stephen Michel wrote: >> -1. I don't think crowdmatching is something we can claim, much like Patreon >> can't claim the word "patron". And all the other words in this sentence and >> their order are important to get the idea across. The only thing I might >> change is "our" => "a". > We invented the word. We should claim it. > I think "crowdmatching" should become the new "kickstarting". > Actually when I thought of it and searched for it in June, I did find somebody had already used it, though with a different meaning: On 06/10/2016 04:39 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: > In thinking about that, I thought of a possible word to use > "crowdmatching" and wondered if Snowdrift has ever considered using > that? I searched to see if anyone else was using it and found > http://makinggoodthingshappen.org/about-crowdmatching-2/ using it in a > somewhat different way. For the moment, I've used the phrase "mutual > matching" in the "spread the word" part of the mockup. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On 24.11.2016 14:10, Stephen Michel wrote: > -1. I don't think crowdmatching is something we can claim, much like Patreon > can't claim the word "patron". And all the other words in this sentence and > their order are important to get the idea across. The only thing I might > change is "our" => "a". We invented the word. We should claim it. I think "crowdmatching" should become the new "kickstarting". signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On November 24, 2016 4:52:08 AM EST, mray wrote: > >Thank you Aaron! >I like the script. > > >> The snowdrift dilemma asks: who will clear the public road when we >all >> get the results whether or not we help? > >* "get the results" sounds very neutral. "benefit from it" would a >positive connotation to what we are about. +1 >> The same issue applies to funding public goods such as music, >software, >> movies, news, research, and so on… > >* music only *can* be an example. I think we need to say that free >music, free software... are examples of public goods. No opinion. I agree "free" is clearer but also more verbose. >> So, Snowdrift.coop helps coordinate everyone with our new >crowdmatching >> system! > >* "So" is a place-filler and could be omitted. Strongly +1 >* "helps" suggests we only do part of the all, but since every >participant is part of "us" that isn't true. We *DO* coordinate, we >don't just help. Let's omit "help" therefore, too. Agree on the change but for different reasons. There are other organizations supporting public goods, so in that sense we are just a part of the whole, helping. But the fact that there are others is irrelevant to what we do. We crowdmatch to fund public goods, regardless of whether they have other funding sources. >* I feel awkward about calling it "our crowdmatching". We should >fundamentally claim the term and only call it "crowdmatching". >"Our" suggests there might be other crowdmatchings. -1. I don't think crowdmatching is something we can claim, much like Patreon can't claim the word "patron". And all the other words in this sentence and their order are important to get the idea across. The only thing I might change is "our" => "a". Or you could say something like "...with a revolutionary new crowdmatching system!" That doesn't exclusively claim it as ours, but it does position us as the pioneer of such a system. >> You just pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a >> project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers >of >> patrons and your budget limit. > >* "just" in an explanation from a biased source almost never turns out >to be true. "just click here" to "just compile the code" and other >variations have conditioned me strongly. To me it is a promise but >rarely delivers. Even when it fits it's still loaded. And this one is >no >exception :P +1. While the basic mechanism is simple, the implications of it are not so, and we shouldn't claim they are. >Maybe start with introducing the limit first to not have to tip toe >around the frightening money part? -1. I'm not sure how to do this without putting too much focus on "but what if...?" I think it would be more appropriate to address this in a different video, or further down the home page. >> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and >we >> build consensus around the most promising projects. > >* Consensus is built indirectly, we shouldn't let people suggest >somebody is directly involved in creating consensus. So a passive form >like "consensus gets built" might fit better. Addressed in other reply. >> Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > >* I want to nit pick on every part so I have to write something here, >too. Done. > >I like it. +1 and +1. People's first introduction to Snowdrift.coop is worth nitpicking on. And is coming along very nicely. >Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit >coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the >credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so it >does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind all >this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with naming >our >name and slogan? No opinion. -- Sent from my phone; please excuse my brevity. Email policy: http://smichel.me/email___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
On November 24, 2016 4:52:08 AM EST, mray wrote: >> This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and >we >> build consensus around the most promising projects. What about "...by the rest of the community, building consensus about..." or "...community, which builds consensus..."? -- Sent from my phone; please excuse my brevity. Email policy: http://smichel.me/email ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Intro video script
Thank you Aaron! I like the script. > The snowdrift dilemma asks: who will clear the public road when we all > get the results whether or not we help? * "get the results" sounds very neutral. "benefit from it" would a positive connotation to what we are about. > The same issue applies to funding public goods such as music, software, > movies, news, research, and so on… * music only *can* be an example. I think we need to say that free music, free software... are examples of public goods. > So, Snowdrift.coop helps coordinate everyone with our new crowdmatching > system! * "So" is a place-filler and could be omitted. * "helps" suggests we only do part of the all, but since every participant is part of "us" that isn't true. We *DO* coordinate, we don't just help. Let's omit "help" therefore, too. * I feel awkward about calling it "our crowdmatching". We should fundamentally claim the term and only call it "crowdmatching". "Our" suggests there might be other crowdmatchings. > You just pledge to donate a little bit for each patron who supports a > project with you. We calculate donations monthly based on the numbers of > patrons and your budget limit. * "just" in an explanation from a biased source almost never turns out to be true. "just click here" to "just compile the code" and other variations have conditioned me strongly. To me it is a promise but rarely delivers. Even when it fits it's still loaded. And this one is no exception :P In this case it is a misleading combination of "just ... a little bit" when we actually describe a system that is designed to be a "controlled thermonuclear donation chain reaction". XD Maybe start with introducing the limit first to not have to tip toe around the frightening money part? > This way, each donation is matched by the rest of the community, and we > build consensus around the most promising projects. * Consensus is built indirectly, we shouldn't let people suggest somebody is directly involved in creating consensus. So a passive form like "consensus gets built" might fit better. > Come join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! * I want to nit pick on every part so I have to write something here, too. Done. I like it. Unrelated to the above we may want to note that we are a non-profit coop. It can be a short mention but it would adds a lot to the credibility. - Maybe even set that straight right from the start so it does suppress peoples thoughts about our "business model" behind all this while they watch? Or put it in the end and together with naming our name and slogan? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
