[Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

[Alec Conroy]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> As for the name-- this looks like a job for....     experts.
> Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my
> only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for
> the most effective solution.
>
> We could at least brainstorm some ideas?

Absolutely!   If we do this, the very first step should be a
widespread call to brainstorm names.

Truth be told, I think I actually could generate a list of a hundred
or more 'sane' options-- it's something I've thinking about for a long
time.

But, actually brainstorming that list is a big upfront time-investment
for potentially zero payoff.   Until we have some idea that this kind
of outreach and project-reclamation movement is something want to do,
it's hard to focus on names when the dialog is still digesting the
need.

We somebody important enough decided this deserves objective 'brand
evaluation' support, then we'll know the idea is worth brainstorming.

Right now, I can come up with lots of names, but they're all names
that appeal to me.   And since I'm already part of Wikimedia, I'll be
in the Unnamed movement no matter what it's named, so I'm not really
in the target audience.

The people a name matters to are not the insiders-- we're already
sold.  We pick the name for the rest of the world...   Our name is how
we present ourselves to the world.    And we want a name that turns
strangers into readers and readers into editors.  Simultaneously, we
want a name that will also to EVERYONE into donors, and our
fundraising team seems like they are very, very tied in to the donor
population what appeals to it.

If we go with an informative name or a WM-related name it might not
matter, but if we go with a 'evocative' or 'inspirational' name, we
need to make sure it inspires OTHERS, not just us. :)

Alec