Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] FOSDEM 2017 - flyer?

[mray]

On 31.01.2017 22:50, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Being one of the 30 patrons so far, I think it's stalling a bit too much at 
> the moment.
> 
> So I have made a A4 flyer suitable to hang on the many pin boards along the 
> hall way
> track at FOSDEM this weekend.
> 
> The audience at FOSDEM is 5000+ free and open source developers and project 
> maintainers.
> 
> http://asbjorn.it/pub/misc/noidx/snowdrift/fosdem2017.pdf
> http://asbjorn.it/pub/misc/noidx/snowdrift/fosdem2017.svg
> 
> If blessed I will print them on thursday around noon UTC.

Thank you!

We certainly can use some more attention among developers.
On that short notice here is a more snowdrift-ish version of that flyer:
http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/d/b10c9132fb/?dl=1

You may have to install fonts if you keep working on the SVG:
https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Nunito
https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Nunito+Sans

BTW: Knowing about the need of material earlier is better.


Cheers,
Robert



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] New Slogan: "Crowdmatching for public goods", terminology clarification.

[mray]

On 20.09.2016 21:27, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> WHOOPS, I was too TIRED. I mistyped! I obviously meant:
> 
> "CrowdMATCHING for public goods" not "crowdfunding"
> 
> Sorry for the confusion there. The first few paragraphs should be
> changed to "crowdmatching" where I carelessly wrote "crowdfunding"
> 
> Sorry!
> 


I suggested a shorter version but totally support "Crowdmatching for
public goods" as well. Lets see how far it takes us! \o/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[mray]

On 20.09.2016 10:04, mray wrote:
> On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
>> What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> 
> What about dropping "for"?
> 
> "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> "Crowdmatching public goods"
> 
> You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
> goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a noun,
> which is a good thing; more active and less static.
> 
> Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without
> depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some sort of
> funding.

Ooops, I meant to say "Mike rightly notes that it (CROWDMATCHING)
implies some sort of funding"

> I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let it do
> some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a
> slogan is bad. Short is good.
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[mray]

On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
> What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"

What about dropping "for"?

"Crowdmatching for public goods"
"Crowdmatching public goods"

You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a noun,
which is a good thing; more active and less static.

Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without
depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some sort of
funding. I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let it do
some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a
slogan is bad. Short is good.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[mray]

On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/10/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
>>>>> charge
>>>>> if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
>>>>
>>>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a bit weak. But 
>>>> I'm curious; what is the benefit to displaying a percentage that makes you 
>>>> strongly prefer it? I still think a level of indirection is a good thing. 
>>>> It almost always is in software. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> First, I like transparently displaying the actual policy.
>>>
>>> Second, the percentage can vary by processor. So, Dwolla takes no fee,
>>> and thus there's no minimum charge when using Dwolla. But say there was
>>> a processor that took a strict 5% fee — I guess we'd accept that at any
>>> level if we felt it was okay to use (even though that would be higher
>>> fee for medium and higher charges vs Stripe). But since this is all
>>> post-MVP, we can ignore this point.
>>>
>>> The main reason is that people are actually used to seeing fees as
>>> percentages. Most crowdfunding sites take a percentage fee (even though
>>> that's unjustified — Kickstarter has no real justification besides "we
>>> can" for taking a full 5% of a $10,000,000 project given that their
>>> costs are about the same as for a $10,000 project. We can discuss the
>>> merits of fixed amounts versus percentages, but percentage is the common
>>> thing people are used to and compare. We use percentage in our own
>>> charts at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding
>>>
>>> I'll give some deference to Robert or others in the design area of this
>>> though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I support Michaels view of preferring percentage.
>> We need to have a simple, clear agenda across all current or future
>> payment processors. A plain dollar might be clearer for one service, but
>> as soon as there are more it gets confusing.
>>
>> We should be able to promise: "Fees are never over 10%. Ever."
>> That will always make sense and does not seem arbitrary.
>>
>>
> 
> Where are we tracking design decisions like this so that we know what
> the plan is once we get to implementing or even just mocking things up?
> 
> 

I don't know we are doing this at all.
But you're right, we probably should do.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[mray]

On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> 
>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
>>> charge
>>> if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
>>
>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a bit weak. But 
>> I'm curious; what is the benefit to displaying a percentage that makes you 
>> strongly prefer it? I still think a level of indirection is a good thing. It 
>> almost always is in software. 
>>
> 
> First, I like transparently displaying the actual policy.
> 
> Second, the percentage can vary by processor. So, Dwolla takes no fee,
> and thus there's no minimum charge when using Dwolla. But say there was
> a processor that took a strict 5% fee — I guess we'd accept that at any
> level if we felt it was okay to use (even though that would be higher
> fee for medium and higher charges vs Stripe). But since this is all
> post-MVP, we can ignore this point.
> 
> The main reason is that people are actually used to seeing fees as
> percentages. Most crowdfunding sites take a percentage fee (even though
> that's unjustified — Kickstarter has no real justification besides "we
> can" for taking a full 5% of a $10,000,000 project given that their
> costs are about the same as for a $10,000 project. We can discuss the
> merits of fixed amounts versus percentages, but percentage is the common
> thing people are used to and compare. We use percentage in our own
> charts at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding
> 
> I'll give some deference to Robert or others in the design area of this
> though.
> 
> 
> 

I support Michaels view of preferring percentage.
We need to have a simple, clear agenda across all current or future
payment processors. A plain dollar might be clearer for one service, but
as soon as there are more it gets confusing.

We should be able to promise: "Fees are never over 10%. Ever."
That will always make sense and does not seem arbitrary.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[mray]

On 03.08.2016 04:13, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>> On 08/02/2016 06:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> 
>>>  I think the cleanest initial way to go is "No more than $limit will be
>>>  added to your outstanding balance each month." That is, carried over
>>>  matches should *not* be counted towards your monthly limit, but fees
>>>  should, in their entirety.
>>>
>>
>> Well said. Even though I have some willingness to defer to Robert and
>> see his view…
> 
> Me, too! Curious about Michael's view as well.
> 

By definition the carry over is lower than the limit where fees make
sense - I expect this to be low.
For this low amount of money to trigger an unfortunate un-matching the
total would have to be full to the brim already. This will hardly
happen, and IF it happens it is only an indicator of a bad situation
that will soon get an auto-un-match anyway. There is not much to gain.

This corner case of a corner case is *NOT* worth breaking the *ONE*
limit the user trusts us with!

I would want to be able to make a promise to honor the limit *without
any restraints*. We can do that. Not doing it makes us look desperate or
needy. People setting a $10 limit should never find a $11 transaction
fee in their payment processors accounting. No matter what wordplays we
come up on our site to differentiate between "monthly pledge" or
"monthly total".

If we let the user set a limit we need a darn good reason to ignore it
*ever*. This is not a good reason.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[mray]

During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit works.
I just want to voice my opinion on how the limit should work:

I strongly believe we should make the limit sacrosanct and not touch it
*never ever*. A decision by the user to set a monthly limit trumps
"hidden costs" always, no matter if we frame the limit as "pledge limit"
or "total limit" or whatever else. If payment fees and carried over
matches would break the limit we need to suppress it as usual: auto
un-match until there is no more problem.

If the user sets a limit she is free to set it higher if that is what
she wants! Crowdmatching itself already is a mechanism that asks to hand
over control, the remaining limit cannot be subject to be overridden by
even more rules.


What are your thoughts on this?





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] UX questions for password reset

[mray]

On 04.06.2016 08:35, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Bryan Richter skreiv 04. juni 2016 03:47:
>> There are two situations where I'm not sure what the best action is.
> 
> IMO, the best solution (in both cases) is to *not* reveal that the use
> has (or hasn’t) an account. If I’m trying to be anonymous, i don’t want
> people to be able to find out whether I have an account at
> Snowdrift.coop. And if the user tries to create an account that already
> exists, *do* supply a ‘reset password’ link in the e-mail that is sent
> (but don’t automatically reset the password).
> 
> See also http://security.stackexchange.com/a/90354
> 

+1



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Next Meeting

[mray]

On 14.05.2016 02:40, Stephen Michel wrote:
> Was yesterday a good Thursday or a bad Thursday?
>

Hi there I wasn't available due to not having internet access in the
appartment we are staying in. I'll be here for the whole week.

> Very belated: I do have a pgp key, but I receive very little encrypted
> mail, so my email setup is not optimized for dealing with it (I use
> geary for most of my mail, which doesn't support gpg; when I get
> encrypted mail I need to switch to evolution). Overall if you wanted to
> send me an encrypted message I'd give you my cell (+1 413 636 1352) and
> tell you to send me a Signal message :)
> 
> If you still want to send me encrypted mail, my key is listed on
> keyservers by step...@snowdrift.coop and s...@smichel.me. Fingerprint is
> 642D CB46 D472 8806 1B9B
> 7F35 6FC6 59B5 2A14 5DE3
> 
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:34 AM, mray <m...@mray.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>>  ...please email me your general availability.
>>
>>
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and
>> about every second Thursday are probably bad for me. I hope this is
>> helpful.
>>
>> Thank you for caring about all the organizational stuff!
>>
>>
>> (do you usa PGP key btw?)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Robert
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] An opt-in we don't prefer could help Snowdrift design , ,

[mray]

On 02.05.2016 22:27, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> This makes sense to me.  Offering a few options rather than just one can
> change people's decision frame from "shall I do this?" (yes vs. no) to
> "how shall I do this?" (option 1 vs. option 2. vs none of the above). 
> Offering a one-time option can allow people to try engaging without
> making more of a commitment than they feel ready for.  Of course it
> would be good to include an option to receive occasional communications
> as a result of the one-time donation, but important for that to be
> opt-in with a clear promise that you can unsubscribe anytime.  And it's
> certainly good to avoid making people feel at all pressured or
> manipulated, which can threaten peoples' need for autonomy and trigger
> psychological reactance (i.e. the motivation to avoid doing what you
> feel pressured to do, even if you might have chosen to do it on your own
> if you hadn't felt that someone was pressuring you).
> 

I also see some potential in letting people wiggle with their binary
choice to be a patron and automatically un-patron after a certain amount
of time. When they feel good about it they can start letting the switch
in a permanent on or off.
Ideally though, my hope would be that people don't need it and get how
snowdrift works from day 1.

> I also think it may be helpful or even important to offer options for
> fractional and multiple patronage.  For example, if a project has a lot
> of a patrons so the monthly amount per patron is high, and I'm only an
> occasional user of what that project produces but would like to support
> it, I could opt to be 1/4 of a patron.  Or if a project I use heavily
> and care a lot about doesn't yet have so many patrons, or has plenty but
> I still want to give it extra support, I could opt to be a double or
> triple patron, etc.

I'm against fractional/multiple patronage if our goal is to rely on the
network effect. It would be adding a lever to the patrons input that is
supposed to be the network effects job. We would give people the freedom
to de-couple themselves from the network effect by the amount their choice.
My impression is that we need to focus on having a simple logic that
makes clear "we are all in this together" with a clear set of actions
and consequences.

Cheers,
Robert

> 
> Best,
> 
> Michael
> 
> Michael Siepmann, Ph.D.
> *The Tech Design Psychologist*™
> /Shaping technology to help people flourish/™
> 303-835-0501   TechDesignPsych.com
>    OpenPGP: 6D65A4F7
> 
>  
> 
> On 05/01/2016 10:11 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> So, I learned from in research in traditional fundraising this
>> interesting bit:
>>
>> This pertains to fundraisers wanting to get people to sign up as ongoing
>> members where they donate monthly or annually (no matching in these
>> traditional cases, of course — nobody has built the Snowdrift.coop model
>> yet). If they include an opt-in checkbox for "one-time only donation" in
>> what would otherwise assume that everyone signing up is going to be a
>> sustaining member… then the mere presence of that opt-in choice results
>> in *more* people becoming sustaining members!
>>
>> In other words, when people feel they aren't forced into being
>> sustaining donors but have a choice to do one-time-only, they end up
>> feeling more comfortable with going ahead and becoming sustaining
>> members after all.
>>
>> So, we could use this idea in our design. We'd provide an opt-in choice
>> to participate only once for just the next month's pay period. We'd set
>> it up so that we don't encourage people to choose that. But maybe this
>> would end up helping more people accept the normal sustaining pledge
>> that we want everyone to go with…
>>
>> Incidentally, besides hearing thoughts from others, I'm not clear in our
>> new project management where is the best place to write down this idea
>> so that it gets discussed and can then be something our research and
>> design folks can consider and test…
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Next Meeting

[mray]

On 12.03.2016 17:34, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> ...please email me your general availability.
> 
> 
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and


...just in case it may matter;
I just realized I messed up timezones Germany is UTC+1, not UTC+2.
I'm sorry, no idea what drove me to assume it is +2 :/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Next Meeting

[mray]

On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
> ...please email me your general availability.


Hello Stephen,

I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and
about every second Thursday are probably bad for me. I hope this is helpful.

Thank you for caring about all the organizational stuff!


(do you usa PGP key btw?)

Cheers,
Robert



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Possible visual aid for discussing whether Snowdrift.coop is a good fit for a project

[mray]

Looks awesome: nice & simple.

On 23.01.2016 17:59, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> This is very much a first draft to illustrate an idea, but I'm sending
> it now in case it could be helpful at SCALE.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[mray]

On 19.10.2015 17:47, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>>  In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
>>>  we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
>>>  above-minimum levels.
>>>
>>>  We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will
>>> tend to
>>>  stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended pledge
>>>  level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable
>>> (ie,
>>>  easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
>>>  level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, I
>>>  just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.
>>>
>>>  let n refer to the number of users.
>>>
>>>  - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.
>>
>> There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes any
>> sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate and
>> see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
>> appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.
>>
>> I think you need to read https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits
> 
> I have read this.
> 
>>>  - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000
>>> users.
>>>  - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
>>>  users' contribution.
>>
>> We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. That
>> would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
>> adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".
> 
> There's very probably some phrasing improvements. However:
> 
> 1. When you join, others will match you at the level they have selected,
> no matter what. The messaging should be:
>  - "If you join, current patrons will donate $X more."
>- This is a simple concept which everyone gets.
>  - "Future patrons will match you at a level they choose. We'll
> recommend they match you 1:1, so if you donate more/less, we'll
> recommend they match YOU more/less respectively.
>- This is slightly more complicated. Probably, this puts the idea
> outside the scope of our MVP. This is fine.
> 
>>>- This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
>>>- The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's not
>>>  highlighted visually.
>>>  - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following message is
>>>  displayed:
>>>- "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended donation[!/.]"
>>>
>>>  Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
>>>  - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended
>>> donation).
>>>  - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
>>>- if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best
>>> deal"
>>>  of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
>>>- if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who actually
>>>  can't afford it from donating.
>>>  - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
>>>  adds little complexity).
>>>  - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to
>>> users.
>>>
>>>  Thoughts?
>>
>> All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
>> It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, discourage
>> reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
>> originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
>> current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
>> with all this.
>>
>> The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too much
>> to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
>> so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
>> explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
>> ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.
> 
> This is where I want to stress the difference here: ***this is NOT
> actually a change of formula!*** For any individual patron the formula
> is still, "I'm pledging to donate X per patron."
> 
> It's a change in the level of donation that we recommend. Actually, how
> we decide on that level of recommendation can be *completely* hidden
> from the user.
> 
> ~~Most~~ All of this is simply a change in how we present information to
> the user.
> 
> The point, is, I believe this, IFF we do the messaging right, is a way
> to get back some of the benefits of the original pledge mechanism,
> without a substantial increase to the complexity of the system,
> particularly from the user's point of view.
> 
> Most users will only ever see a button like:
> 
> /-\
> |**PLEDGE**  |
> | (recommended donation)" |
> \-/
>(change donation level)
> 
> 

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[mray]

On 21.09.2015 05:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> My vote now:  ***Help Free the Commons***

Staring with "help" sounds desperate.
It also is very vague. Help in what way?

Helping to free something also sounds like it isn't free, but you set it
free. We are not doing this. We try to make people create things that
will be free right from the start.

One can also interpret the slogan in different ways like:

"Help us to free the commons."
"We are the help that frees the commons."



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[mray]

On 18.09.2015 19:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> Robert, I basically agree with all your critiques of the current slogan,
> and the clunkiness of ", together" although it's still clear that "we"
> doesn't jump out as a welcome inclusiveness. In fact, I think it's weak
> enough that it's better to go with concise and eliminate "we" rather
> than have it.
> 

So you agree we need another slogan?

@"we":
"we" might be less inclusive than "together", but my point was that it
addresses the human factor at all. (unlike "funding free culture").
"we" is almost as important as the financial and freedom parts of us.
"together" overreaches in that aspect in my opinion.
Let's face it: We are a closed club! We ask people to get on board, open
up an account and trust their money with us. Our whole point is to
persuade people to join the in-group. Not drawing a line makes that hard.
"we" is also short.

> The main complaint I have about your proposals and suggestions is that
> you spend most of your time saying "these are the qualities we want"
> (which I agree with) and "this is how the current slogan falls short"
> (which I agree with), but you're not adequately addressing the *serious*
> flaws with the word "free" (which are still somewhat present in the
> phrase "free culture").
> 
> It generally feels like you say "the current slogan is not good,
> therefore this other one is good" without actually addressing the
> concerns about the new proposal. "Free" on its own is so bad for various
> reasons (jingoism and confusion about gratis) that I and others have
> been arguing that it is *worse* than the admittedly clunky and not great
> "free*libre*open".

I was responding to the (rightful) challenge to explain why a new slogan
is necessary. *If* we can agree that there needs to be a new slogan
there is no need to point out the flaws repeatedly.

I did address "free" in my previous mail:
- "free" admittedly is not perfect (like its alternatives!)
- "free" is closest to "freedom"
- "free" changes associations next to "fund" and "culture"
- "free" generally has a *very* positive connotation
- "free" is short.

btw, I second Bryans note that we should not shy away from "free"
because others use it in other contexts.

> 
> I don't think anyone disagrees with your critiques of the current
> slogan. The concern is about serious problems with the alternatives.

When we agree we need a new slogan, lets also agree that our ultimate
concern is having a slogan that works where the old one didn't!
Otherwise I don't see what we are trying to achieve here.

Despite its shortcomings I agree on using "free" here in the slogan
because it is catchy and sticks and works good enough - leaving
idealistic precision behind and accepting a *certain* degree of
fuzziness on purpose.

> 
> A concise option: "Funding the free*libre*open commons" — despite the
> clunkiness, there's value in embracing a *consistent* term across all
> our messaging.

There *is* a value in consistent terminology, but it does not trump the
need to have non-clunky slogan.

> 
> And for removing clunkiness and getting more brief: "Funding the free
> and open commons"

That's only a bit less clunky and 2 characters shorter.
Open commons sounds strange to me.

> 
> I don't love it but: "Funding the digital commons" is kinda ok. I really
> don't like the feel of the word "digital" though.

I like this, but I miss the "we".
Initially I had problems with "digital", too. But I come to the
conclusion that the reproduction of goods at no cost is essential to our
cause. It appears to be part of the deal by definition.

What about:
"we fund digital commons" ?



> 
> -Aaron
> 
> P.S.And while funding *is* the key feature, our vision is to have the
> best FLO commons and stop the amount of resources that get locked up in
> proprietary stuff. So, I happen to feel some sympathy toward not saying
> "funding" in the slogan because I'd rather we think of funding as a
> means to the end and focus on the end rather than the means, because it
> leaves us open to working on promoting FLO and volunteering alongside
> funding — but despite my sympathies in that way, I *do* buy the argument
> that focusing on funding makes more sense, so I'm okay with that. The
> term "free" is the one that has to be addressed because it is so bad in
> practice in reaching out to the general public.
> 






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[mray]

On 17.09.2015 06:13, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Copying my reply from the design list (this discussion does belong on
> the general discuss list)
> 
> On 09/16/2015 03:54 AM, mray wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>>
>> It is time to have a fruitful discussion about our slogan, we don't have
>> one - but we should. My current mock-ups just use "FUNDING A FREE
>> CULTURE" but that isn't anything that has been decided at all.
>> We are about to create promotional resources and eventually I'd like to
>> make use of a slogan. We need to settle this soon.
>>
>> The properties I seek in a slogan are:
>> * brevity
>> * concision
>> * simplicity
>> * clarity
>>
>> Concerning what the slogan could convey have a look at our mission:
>>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mission
>> or the slogan page:
>>   https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/slogan
>>
>> So here is my candidate:
>>
>>
>> "WE FUND FREE CULTURE."
>>
>> WE   indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including you
>> FUND covers our financial angle
>> FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open
>> CULTURE  represents the scope of different content we support
>>
>>
>> Thoughts? Comments? Alternatives?
>>
> 
> Obviously, it should be referenced that the current slogan on the site is:
> 
> "clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"
> 
> The "clear the path" indicates our snowdrift metaphor (otherwise, with
> no cue at all, it's far too easy for people to think 'snowball' and
> think the snow metaphor is about how all the little donations add up,
> instead of the desired metaphor of a blocked path). This version of the
> slogan is predicated on a position that there exists no acceptable
> truncation of "free/libre/open".
> 
> Why "free" even in "free culture" is a problem: Free is 95% of the time
> associated with price, whether we like it or not. In fact, there's a
> whole initiative in Portland, OR where I live to fight back against
> "free culture" — that exact phrase. It's headed by musicians who are
> trying to push back against the trend of people downloading music at no
> charge (which we support, but we want artists funded) and *also*
> (importantly) against the trend of bars getting live musicians to play
> for zero pay just for "exposure" and such. In other words, to them "free
> culture" is the whole trend of people thinking they can get everything
> at no charge. Now, their whole initiative is misguided, but I mention it
> for reference.
> 
> Obviously, "funding a free culture" makes it clear that we *aren't*
> working against artists being paid. But still.
> 
> "culture" on its own definitely makes a lot of people thing this is
> about art and not about science, software, or technology. Of course, we
> have a strong software audience, so having a lot of software present, we
> will be clearly about software, so emphasizing the cultural side in the
> slogan does help offset that.
> 
> I think if there's one word to be the best truncation it's actually
> "open" except that is a no-go because (A) tons of open-washing makes it
> almost meaningless today, and (B) this would draw the ire of the FSF
> folks who oppose the replacement of "free" with "open".
> 
> In various contexts, such as "clearing the path to a free world", the
> term "free" sounds jingoistic, as "the free world" is used to mean
> America / U.S. versus the Soviety Union etc.
> 
> Although "creative commons" is taken, various forms of statements around
> the term "commons" or maybe "public goods" make sense. It is a totally
> accurate way to describe us to say "we fund the digital commons" or
> something of that ilk.
> 
> Please, others on this list, perspective is useful. Please share your
> thoughts.
> 
> Best,
> Aaron
> 


You're right to point out that the project indeed is using a slogan.
Just to be clear though: you agree that a new one is needed, right?


@"clearing the path":
I see how this fits thematically, but it's clunky and has a dogmatic
connotation like "we know THE ONE right path." But the main issue I have
is: it *only* fits thematically.
It does not add relevant context by staying metaphorical and stating the
obvious (we remove what needs removing). It just underlines that there
is a theme but does not clarify that it is about that particular
dilemma, let alone what that type of dilemma actually is about.
Once you know all th

Re: [Discuss] payment frequency

[mray]

On 13.07.2015 14:33, Peter Harpending wrote:
 In addition, I don't want to get into the practice of playing
 psychological tricks on our patrons. This isn't a casino, after all.
 


I don't have any trickery in mind. It is just another way to
transparently display the same thing. Having a background in visual
design I base decisions along those lines all the time.
Of course the condition is that the payment really happens daily.

Paying 15$ each month should not have unnecessarily bad connotations.
Like a constant reminder that this is 180$/year and 900$ in only five
years. Unless this kind of reminder would results in a raised incentive
to give more I'd rather see 50¢ per day, that's just my superficial idea.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss