chadwhitacre
commented
11 years ago the identity crisis of multiple taglines
Yeah, that's really confusing right now. Part of the issue is that different people relate to different terms or metaphors or parallel concepts:
- distributed genius grant
- sustainable crowdfunding
- weekly gift exchange
- pay-what-you-want
- tithing
- gift economy
I sort of envision an "about" page that presents all of these and says "Which one sounds interesting to you?" something like that.
Who is involved and welcome in which conversations?
Everyone is welcome in every conversation. :-)
What is/are the best platform/s for having the conversations?
Here's where conversations currently happen:
- Medium
- Tumblr
- Tinyletter
- GitHub
- IRC,
- Google Hangouts
- face-to-face
As with taglines, I don't think we get to pick just one. I think the best we can do is make a page "For Contributors" that tries to give the lay of the land.
heidigardner
@whit537 OOOOoooh all these cross referencing tickets. Please forgive the more generic nature of this message. Since most of my concerns now seem focused on identity, I posted them in #133 until I realized that was about user profiles-- I am more focused on the Gittip identity.
I am sure these points have been made somewhere, but I am just going to express them as I read through the current documentation. So I plead forgiveness for repetition in advance.
I have an interest in helping to market or get the word out about gittip and in reading this user stories/FAQ thread it is apparent that clarity is needed on some of the issues before dropping it to communities beyond the open source world (who may be more amenable to changes and flexible identity.)
I read the dilemma and previous issue with the name. Since we are beyond a place where changing that is an issue, incorporate some explanation into the history on the website-- a branching out beyond the tech world (Git) and even beyond the term (tip). I think of tipping as a one time dealio, so it seems to me a misnomer in the case of weekly long term support. (This may be why the issue of one-offs will return over and over despite a desire to commit to the weekly format.) The intent reads more like tithing to me (not that we want to invite people’s religious baggage.) Everyone, each user, might have a different take. I have seen “micro grants” “genius grants” and “gift economy” all used in relation to gittip. People crossing “communities” won’t know what they hey any of those are without explanation. So, in general “inspiring generosity” does seem the most general way to unpack the “tip” part. Right now, the “About” tab is all the way at the bottom-- so before I can click it I have to go through the identity crisis of multiple taglines. . . hmmm.
The people committed to Gittip-- I am seeing references to growing the gittip team-- to find out who is contributing (in any way) is the only way to comb the blog, the irc archives and Github issues/pull requests? How can those interested in Github’s future development, if not gather and converse more cohesively, then even be aware of each other at a glance?
Communicating with the customer (either in support or marketing) is definitely the entrance to the floodgate. I am seeing the struggle of where these conversations do and should happen and am experiencing them personally. What I am writing is basically a really long “comment” but where does it belong? Most likely not in writing, first of all, which is why more face to face gittip strategizing is key. Also the open source-ness of gittip is its best asset and worst enemy. But it turns into a huge Quaker meeting and a constant neverending movement toward consensus. That can certainly be complimentary, and yet the pitfalls are that nothing ever feels “definable” which is gonna be a rub for marketing. So the questions are- who is involved and welcome in which conversations and what is/are the best platform/s for having the conversations?
I know almost as little about business as I do code (though I do know church models)-- but I suspect there is going to have to be some division of labor-- people to be touchstones for particular brands of customers, experts with particular technical knowledge, etc. Maybe Chad isn’t ready to be a CEO, but if Gittip is going to be a “thing” -especially since it involves moola and livelihoods - then structure is going to become a necessary evil. That doesn’t mean it has to be a hierarchical or patriarchal or capitalist structure, but security and longevity are going to come from clear identity and organization.