Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Arc Riley]

+1 to Stephens suggestions and comments on "free software" vs "software
freedom"

On 18 Sep 2015 01:22, "Stephen Michel"  wrote:
>
> At the risk of turning this into another discussion of free vs libre vs
open, I'll also throw out there that I personally try to avoid using the
term "free software" when I'm advocating, because people who aren't already
familiar with the movement hear those two words, come to an immediate
conclusion that you mean gratis, and will not be convinced otherwise
(they'll say they understand, and then a week later will make a comment
that shows complete lack of understanding). Instead, I prefer "Software
Freedom" -- it's immediately clear what I'm talking about, most people
haven't heard of it before, and are actually interested in hearing me
explain more. One additional note to be clear: this isn't about "X word has
become perverted by other groups, so we shouldn't use it any more," it's
about "x word was never very good at explaining what we're all about in the
first place, Z does it much better." Of course, the problem with 'freedom'
is that it often leads to awkward wordings, which is why I love 'FLO' for
when brevity is paramount.
>
> Back on topic: we could use something like "Funding a culture of
Freedom," (though that isn't as direct) or "Funding Freedom Culture"
(though that's awkwardly phrased). "Clearing freedom's path," (short)
"Clearing the path for a culture of freedom," (long) or a similar,
medium-length slogan could work, too.
>
> I also like "together" over "we." I think "we" is catchier, but to our
detriment -- it feels too corporate, where 'together' feels more genuine
and grassroots.
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Stephen Michel]

I'll also put forward, I ***really*** (3 stars!) like 'help fund' as the first 
two words of our slogan.

I think we're nearing a couple of final options. Perhaps it would be a good 
idea to conduct some (informal) "market research"? Make a survey that lists a 
couple of our top choices and ask a few questions about what associations they 
bring to mind (ex, 'What do you think "Snowdrift.coop: help fund digital 
commons" does?').

On September 20, 2015 3:29:41 PM EDT, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>
>
>On 09/20/2015 03:34 AM, mray wrote:
>> On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
 @"we":
 "we" might be less inclusive than "together", but my point was that
>it
 addresses the human factor at all. (unlike "funding free culture").
 "we" is almost as important as the financial and freedom parts of
>us.
 "together" overreaches in that aspect in my opinion.
 Let's face it: We are a closed club! We ask people to get on board,
>open
 up an account and trust their money with us. Our whole point is to
 persuade people to join the in-group. Not drawing a line makes that
>hard.
 "we" is also short.

>>>
>>> Although subtle, the ".coop" part of the name already includes the
>>> community aspect. Aesthetically, I like "funding" better than "we
>fund",
>>> and the "ing" part emphasizes the ongoing aspect of things. I don't
>feel
>>> strongly here though.
>> 
>> The reason I value the "we" so strongly is because we need to make
>clear
>> that snowdrift is something to be part of. "funding" alone makes it
>> remain unclear how the funding is done, but this is the *VERY*
>essence
>> of our cause, it is "WE" who are funding this. not some snowdrift
>entity.
>> along with "we fund" any appeal like "join us" makes so much more
>sense,
>> it just fits way better.
>> aesthetically i don't care about either form that much.
>> "We fund" is more dynamic than "funding" I think, though.
>> 
>
>I'm not sure about the dynamicness of "we fund" over "funding". I
>really
>like the "ing", however, I agree about the collective / join us issue.
>
>I wish it wasn't as long, but the feeling of togetherness is better
>spelled out. Ignoring length, "Working together to fund the digital
>commons" is the best way to completely get all the meaning. Another
>would be "collective funding of the digital commons" or "social funding
>for the digital commons" or "coming together to fund the digital
>commons" or, how about: "join us in funding the digital commons!" or
>shorter version of that, "fund the digital commons with us!" or, I like
>this best of my little brainstorm here: "help us fund the digital
>commons!" variations of that: "help fund the digital commons" or "let's
>fund the digital commons" …
>
>I'm not opposed to "we" entirely, but I would like to get feedback from
>others and see what others think of variations like I just posted.
>
>> 
>>> ...
>> 
>>>
>>> Let me be completely clear: the *only* reason I think it's okay at
>all
>>> to consider a slogan that just says "free" but doesn't include
>"open" is
>>> because we actually *want* projects on Snowdrift.coop to be
>accessible
>>> at no-charge, gratis. So, we *are* talking about funding the work to
>>> make things that are then gratis to the world. So, emphasizing that
>>> we're building a no-charge commons is OKAY. Thus, I don't totally
>reject
>>> "free" alone. But we shouldn't fool ourselves, in a short slogan,
>"free"
>>> will continue to emphasize gratis no matter what we do. It does not
>>> bring to mind a distinction between FLO and proprietary for most
>people.
>>> The word that does that best for most English speakers is "open".
>And
>>> "open" is a word where Bryan's point stands: our main objection is
>that
>>> others use it in ways we don't like, and maybe that isn't a strong
>>> enough objection.
>> 
>> This is what I mean by fuzziness that I'm willing to accept in a
>slogan.
>> "free" isn't precise enough to exactly phrase what we mean, *BUT* the
>> whole gratis angle plays in our hands, too. After all the most
>relevant
>> freedom for people in our case is to get digital goods without cost!
>> Sure the freedom to inspect and change does not get explicitly
>included
>> as we would like, but I see we can do that well enough later where we
>> don't have the pressure to be brief and catchy.
>> And "free" isn't wrong! If it was it would not matter how, short
>> positive and catchy it is.
>> We just have to rely on people to read _at least_ a bit more about
>the
>> project than our slogan.
>> I even see how we have a _freedom_ to leave things a open in terms of
>> exact interpretation, "free" is after all a very broad term.
>> 
>
>Yes, so accepting the gratis fuzziness, I don't see "free" in our
>slogan
>as unacceptable, but I still dislike the lack of clarity, and the
>inconsistency in terminology.
>
>>> ...
 What about:
 "we fund digital commons" ?

>>>
>>> I just really prefer the aesthetics of "funding the 

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/20/2015 02:02 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On September 20, 2015 4:12:03 PM EDT, David Thomas  
> wrote:
>> Count me amongst those who feel "Funding ..." sounds too much like
>> we've got a big pool of money we're giving out based on our
>> (exclusive) discretion, and I don't think "We fund" does much to fix
>> it.
>>
>> "Working together to fund..." is better on that count, and doesn't
>> strike me as terribly awkward, but there was talk of tracking
>> non-monetary contribution as well, and I'm not sure whether we want to
>> exclude that in our slogan.
>>
>> Most fundamentally, we are "coordinating people to mobilize resources
>> to help build the commons of non-rival goods".  Which is, of course, a
>> horrible slogan...
> 
> I have a few questions that I think might help us come to common ground on 
> our disagreements. But first, some view-bait:
> 
> What if www.snowdrift.coop *were* purely a fundraising platform for FLO works?
> 

Interesting brainstorm, but I don't think there's enough distinction
between the site and the org in terms of mission to be worthwhile. I
personally dislike any "www" junk being pushed into things, especially
as an attempt to distinguish the site.

If we were to make such a distinction, it would be "the Snowdrift
Cooperative" vs "Snowdrift.coop". I don't think the distinction is
helpful enough right now though.

> I want to draw your attention to what may be an important distinction: "www." 
> When I think of snowdrift.coop the ORGANIZATION /COMMUNITY, I think of a lot 
> more than funding. But when I think of the SITE (which I propose we 
> distinguish by referring to it with the www prefix) or describe it to 
> friends, I talk almost exclusively about the fundraising aspect.
> 
> So, I have a couple questions for you all:
> 
> - Do you feel that the site and the organization/community are distinct 
> entities?
> - If so, must they have the same slogan?
> - Which slogan are we brainstorming for right now? 
> 

To be clear, the slogan we are concerned about right now is: "what do we
print on stickers and shirts, and what goes on the site homepage?"
Whether we have more than one slogan in the long run for different
purposes is a matter we can leave open but ignore for now.

>> If "digital commons" sounds too computery, some alternatives to
>> "digital" (none of which I like, but might give someone else an idea):
>> "non-rival", "non-subtractable", "shareable".
> 
> I think "digital commons" sounds about the right amount of computery for a 
> description of what we actually fund (ie, as it's currently used on the 
> site). However, I'm concerned that in a slogan it comes off as "by geeks for 
> geeks" and might turn off your "average" person. Quotes because by average, I 
> still mean the demographic that's likely to participate in a crowdfunding 
> campaign.
> 
> Unfortunately, I think your alternatives are neither as clear nor as catchy, 
> and I can't think of better alternatives. 
> 

I also highly dislike the "this is for geeks" implications of "digital
commons" but also have no better solution. But the issue with Digital
Commons being trademarked is the other concern.

I think "Help fund the digital commons" is a very good prospect.

To continue with the scope, what we are not doing is local
infrastructure like parks and such — although in the very long-term,
maybe we'd ever branch out to that. Is it that important that we
emphasize that we *aren't* for parks?

Here's a proposal: "Help fund the commons"

That's super short, it includes the "join us" element, the "funding"
element, and the scope that this is all about resources we all share…
and that's it. It won't have any trademark issues, it doesn't sound
geeky/nerdy *at all*. The *only* downside is that people will wonder if
it covers rivalrous stuff like parks. Maybe that's not a concern. We can
clarify right away that our *focus* is on shareable online works and
that works online don't *count* as being commons unless they are FLO.

So… As I think through the issues… I'm going to state that my vote right
now goes to this new idea, again:: **Help fund the commons**

I like "help" as a call to action far far far far better than "we", and
it's nice and super short, it doesn't have insider terms, and the system
we're building *does* make sense for all sorts of commons, even though
our focus is online commons…

My main concern is that "help fund the commons" (and most of the similar
proposals) all look a bit too non sequitur next to image of shoveling
snow, primarily because shoveling doesn't look like my image of "funding"…

So that leads me to some new brainstormed ideas…

"Help free the commons" — by whatever means we can, funding, work etc.
and *this* use of free as a *verb* has less confusion compared to free
as an adjective. This slogan is clean, clear, short, and fits both the
mission and the metaphor and image of shoveling the snow.

I just ran this by my wife, and she thinks 

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[David Thomas]

I think some market research could be a great thing.  I have some
contacts in that field - I'll see if I can scare up some volunteer
effort from someone who knows what they're doing.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Stephen Michel
 wrote:
> I'll also put forward, I ***really*** (3 stars!) like 'help fund' as the
> first two words of our slogan.
>
> I think we're nearing a couple of final options. Perhaps it would be a good
> idea to conduct some (informal) "market research"? Make a survey that lists
> a couple of our top choices and ask a few questions about what associations
> they bring to mind (ex, 'What do you think "Snowdrift.coop: help fund
> digital commons" does?').
>
>
> On September 20, 2015 3:29:41 PM EDT, Aaron Wolf 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/20/2015 03:34 AM, mray wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote:


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



  Although subtle, the ".coop" part of the name already includes the
  community aspect. Aesthetically, I like "funding" better than "we
 fund",
  and the "ing" part emphasizes the ongoing aspect of things. I don't
 feel
  strongly here though.
>>>
>>>
>>>  The reason I value the "we" so strongly is because we need to make clear
>>>  that snowdrift is something to be part of. "funding" alone makes it
>>>  remain unclear how the funding is done, but this is the *VERY* essence
>>>  of our cause, it is "WE" who are funding this. not some snowdrift
>>> entity.
>>>  along with "we fund" any appeal like "join us" makes so much more sense,
>>>  it just fits way better.
>>>  aesthetically i don't care about either form that much.
>>>  "We fund" is more dynamic than "funding" I think, though.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure about the dynamicness of "we fund" over "funding". I really
>> like the
>> "ing", however, I agree about the collective / join us issue.
>>
>> I wish it wasn't as long, but the feeling of togetherness is better
>> spelled out. Ignoring length, "Working together to fund the digital
>> commons" is the best way to completely get all the meaning. Another
>> would be "collective funding of the digital commons" or "social funding
>> for the digital commons" or "coming together to fund the digital
>> commons" or, how about: "join us in funding the digital commons!" or
>> shorter version of that, "fund the digital commons with us!" or, I like
>> this best of my little brainstorm here: "help us fund the digital
>> commons!" variations of that: "help fund the digital commons" or "let's
>> fund the digital commons" …
>>
>> I'm not opposed to "we" entirely, but I would like to get feedback from
>> others and see what others think of variations like I just posted.
>>
>>>

  ...
>>>
>>>


  Let me be completely clear: the *only* reason I think it's okay at all
  to consider a slogan that just says "free" but doesn't include "open"
 is
  because we actually *want* projects on Snowdrift.coop to be accessible
  at no-charge, gratis. So, we *are* talking about funding the work to
  make things that are then gratis to the world. So, emphasizing that
  we're building a no-charge commons is OKAY. Thus, I don't totally
 reject
  "free" alone. But we shouldn't fool ourselves, in a short slogan,
 "free"
  will continue to emphasize gratis no matter what we do. It does not
  bring to
 mind a distinction between FLO and proprietary for most people.
  The word that does that best for most English speakers is "open". And
  "open" is a word where Bryan's point stands: our main objection is that
  others use it in ways we don't like, and maybe that isn't a strong
  enough objection.
>>>
>>>
>>>  This is what I mean by fuzziness that I'm willing to accept in a slogan.
>>>  "free" isn't precise enough to exactly phrase what we mean, *BUT* the
>>>  whole gratis angle plays in our hands, too. After all the most relevant
>>>  freedom for people in our case is to get digital goods without cost!
>>>  Sure the freedom to inspect and change does not get explicitly included
>>>  as we would like, but I see we can do that well enough later where we
>>>  don't have the pressure to be brief and catchy.
>>>  And "free" isn't wrong! If it was it would not matter how, short
>>>  positive and catchy it is.
>>>  We just have to rely on people to
>>> read _at least_ a bit 

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

[Peter Harpending]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, 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?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Robert
> 
> 

The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a
free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the slogan. It's
a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.


pgpEfAh5rpBm6.pgp
Description: PGP 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 the context *already* - it makes sense. But that's
using the slogans purpose backwards.

@"free":
Given that we have to compromise either way I'm willing to accept clear
downsides. "We Fund free culture" still seems ok to me -even- when
"free" is broadly associated with "gratis".
As you point out the "funding" part of the slogan changes its meaning.
So does the word "culture". Using "free" as a property of the broad term
"culture" certainly amplifies the "freedom" aspect of "free".
Finally "free" comes with a good all the time.

Do I get this right that "we fund the digital commons" is your #1?

Removing the 

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

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

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Design mailing list
des...@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/17/2015 09:55 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, mray wrote:
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a
>> free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the slogan. It's
>> a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.
> 
> It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
> heard.
> 
> Here are some other thoughts of mine:
> 
> In Aaron's response on the design list, he seems to imply that "open"
> is dead to us as a word to describe the kinds of works we want to
> support. I reject that claim. We don't *have* to use it, but I believe
> we *can* use it. Just because there is a thing called "open washing",
> and just because some close-minded people at an otherwise
> freedom-favoring organization have declared it anathema, doesn't mean
> it is now a meaningless word. If we want to give up every word that
> somebody makes a concerted effort to pervert, soon our language will
> consist of nothing but "buy now" and "Coke". I don't want the o-word
> to become like the n-word.
> 
> On that note, (again referring to Aaron's other email), the fact that
> some dastardly folks have decided to pervert the term "free culture"
> to mean something that is absolutely nothing like its current meaning,
> doesn't mean we have to play along. Free culture, in my opinion, is
> the English phrase where "free" has the strongest connotation with
> "libre". Culture is already free-as-in-beer. I won't be bullied or
> brainwashed into thinking it is anything otherwise.
> 
> Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of
> discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does
> not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe
> including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the
> following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, together".
> 
> That's all I got. I'm interested to hear more thoughts.
> 

I agree with "open" as an acceptable term, particularly in reference to
the strongest (and totally aligned with us and one of our accepted
definitions for projects) "Open Definition" http://opendefinition.org/od/

Furthermore, although we've gone with FLO overall and I really want
consistency in our messaging, "Free & Open" or "Free and Open" is
something that I think has strong merit in various cases.

I agree *completely* with the "together" versus the "we" issue. "We
fund…" definitely sounds like "we, the Snowdrift.coop folks" in a way
that does not at all come across as inclusive. It's comparable to a
restaurant saying "we serve the finest wine" or whatever.

FWIW, the evolution of the current slogan was:

"Working together to clear the obstacles"
"Working together to clear the path"
"Clearing the path to a free, libre, open world"
"Clearing the path to a Free/Libre/Open world"

I remain pretty strongly in favor of keeping the current slogan, but
would accept removing "libre" if it were insisted (but don't favor
that), and I'm perfectly fine with any alternatives to the punctuation,
including return to commas or using bullets or hyphens.

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Agree on a Slogan

[Bryan Richter]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, mray wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a
> free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the slogan. It's
> a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.

It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
heard.

Here are some other thoughts of mine:

In Aaron's response on the design list, he seems to imply that "open"
is dead to us as a word to describe the kinds of works we want to
support. I reject that claim. We don't *have* to use it, but I believe
we *can* use it. Just because there is a thing called "open washing",
and just because some close-minded people at an otherwise
freedom-favoring organization have declared it anathema, doesn't mean
it is now a meaningless word. If we want to give up every word that
somebody makes a concerted effort to pervert, soon our language will
consist of nothing but "buy now" and "Coke". I don't want the o-word
to become like the n-word.

On that note, (again referring to Aaron's other email), the fact that
some dastardly folks have decided to pervert the term "free culture"
to mean something that is absolutely nothing like its current meaning,
doesn't mean we have to play along. Free culture, in my opinion, is
the English phrase where "free" has the strongest connotation with
"libre". Culture is already free-as-in-beer. I won't be bullied or
brainwashed into thinking it is anything otherwise.

Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of
discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does
not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe
including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the
following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, together".

That's all I got. I'm interested to hear more thoughts.


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