Urgent: Names and Faces for #WeAreTwitter
We have gotten the feedback that the petition in its current form is too anonymous and the #communication group agrees.
Thus, we intend to publish names along with the next stage of the petition. Please raise your hand if you want to be publicly associated with the campaign.
I'll set up a proposal. Simply vote 'yes' if we can use your name.
Poll Created Sun 30 Oct 2016 2:49PM
Do you want to be mentioned as a member of this group? Closed Mon 31 Oct 2016 11:14AM
See opening statement for background.
Vote 'yes' if you want to be mentioned. It's not required to vote 'no' as we will only mention the 'yes'-sayers :)
|Results||Option||% of points||Voters|
0 of 248 people have voted (0%)
Tom McDonough Sun 30 Oct 2016 3:25PM
@dannyspitzberg Only those who agree here will be named below the petition
Johnny Haeusler Sun 30 Oct 2016 3:28PM
We don't have to call these people "The group" or "The representatives" I guess. Maybe something like "First signers" would be enough?
Nathan Schneider Sun 30 Oct 2016 7:42PM
I agree with @tomladendorf. @thomaseuler1, this proposal was made without agreement that this overall strategy is correct. I disagree with the basic idea. But I'm willing to go with the decision of the group.
Thomas Euler Sun 30 Oct 2016 8:38PM
That is a fair point.
While I am certain that it gives more credibility to the whole thing (several people have stressed that we are currently very anonymous and I'm not the only one who received this type of feedback), let's have this discussion. Should we open a new thread for this and keep this one here with the intended function?
Nathan Schneider Mon 31 Oct 2016 2:46AM
@thomaseuler1 yes, please close the current proposal and start a new one asking if people want this to begin with. I think it's a very poor idea for a number of reasons:
- Most people won't know who those names are. They won't really add much heft. And in the process, we'll lose the mystery and allure of anonymity.
- Anonymity has shortcomings, but one advantage is that it invites people to imagine themselves as participants in the collective, rather than assuming the named people will do everything for them.
- The list of names will not reflect the diversity we aspire to.
- The list of names will not do justice to who really put work into creating the petition and promoting it. If the goal is attributing credit and participation, a better way would be to make roles more explicit.
- If people ask who's behind this, as Danny said, tell them almost 200 people organizing on Loomio and Slack, and they can join here: http://internetofownership.net/campaigns/wearetwitter/
Stephanie Jo Kent Tue 1 Nov 2016 1:25AM
Yes please add my name.
and hello - love this idea - can't be very involved but want to help!
Nathan Schneider Tue 1 Nov 2016 2:16AM
@thomaseuler1 in lieu of a decision about whether to do this, I'm proceeding under the name "#WeAreTwitter organizing committee."
john gieryn Tue 1 Nov 2016 8:54PM
happy to be mentioned; @coopchange. Nathan's point makes sense to me, but there are times when put faces behind it might make sense- in this case, it might make sense to pre-approve a diverse group of media-liaisons to distribute that role?
other note: in terms of names on the petition- Change.com is already recording who is OK with their names being displayed as signers
Danny Spitzberg · Sun 30 Oct 2016 3:17PM
Before I say Yay or Nay, can you clarify if adding my name means adding it a group of individuals to the footer of the petition, or, adding all names of all individuals who sign the petition?