Hi all, this discussion sounds like the one on the "libregraphics dot org" one ;) I like the idea by the way. In my memory, Jon Nordby had reserved a suitable similar domain last year for this. Maybe the Alexandre Prodoukine's <a href="http://libregraphicsworld.org/" target="_blank">http://libregraphicsworld.org/</a> or the a.l.e.'s <a href="http://freegraphicsdesigner.org" target="_blank">http://www.freegraphicdesigner.org/</a> are suitable if they agree. Why not start to use one of thoses now, with "resources dot oneofthosedomains dot org" ? <a href="http://create.freedesktop.org/resources/">http://create.freedesktop.org/resources/</a> is ok too if we have nothing else. Jon, Alexandre, a.l.e., what do you think ? Cheers, Camille <div class="gmail_quote">2011/6/19 Gregory Pittman <<a href="mailto:gpittman@iglou.com" target="_blank">gpittman@iglou.com</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div></div><div>On 06/19/2011 11:16 AM, Yuval Levy wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On June 19, 2011 10:55:17 AM a.l.e wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> just one question: do the create folk really like that "stuff" thing for resources? </blockquote> I can't answer for others and there is no poll known to me to answer the question. I can answer for myself... <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> i'm no english native speaker, so i'm not sure i'm the best person to judge, but me don't like it. </blockquote> ... and you can (and should!) too. Everybody's opinions are welcome. No need to be a native speaker. In fact the perspective of non-native speaker is more important simply because there are more non-native speakers than native speakers and this is not about getting things correct from a grammar/sytanx point of view, but form how it sounds and feels and types for everybody. I am no native speaker. My own personal opinion about the few words that have been floating the room for quite some time, in no particular order: * stuff: I dislike it. It's as generic as "thing" and won't yeild useful search engine results. * LGM: I dislike acronyms. They require insider knowledge and are thus difficult to memorize, and are ambigous to different sets of insiders and by extensions to search engines. No good to communicate to the outside world. * create: nice but too generic / ambiguous. while it expresses what we do, there is little chance that we can pump into it enough power to make it stand on its own. * freedesktop: wrong context * free / libre: relevant in a different context. too broad to define "us" (we are only a small part of the free / libre movement) and too narrow to define "us" as well (libre graphics is just a part of the graphics universe) * graphics / graphicsworld: is what come nearest to what I like, but still a little bit too generic (for search engines and for mnemonics). Plus, some of us create multimedia, which covers also the time dimension and a broader space that includes also the 20Hz-20KHz band and not only the "visible window" in the 400–790THz band. And creativity goes beyond audio and video - there is also text and surrogates like braille; and there is the physical creativity with clay and other materials, rapid prototyping (3D-printers) etc. So maybe a definition in terms of *purpose*. What are we creating for? Is it a form of communication? exchange? self-gratification? all or none of the above? Of course it is always easier to criticize than to propose alternatives, so please don't take the above as diminishing any of the terms mentioned. If I had thought a better term, I would have proposed it long ago. I can live with the status quo of a cacophony of terms and duplication of resources until a superior term emerges from it by its sheer intrinsic power. In many parts of the world a photo camera is called a "Kodak"; adhesive tape is called "Scotch"; and a refirgerator is called a "Frigidaire" - the intrinsic power of these terms have transcended their artificially created brands (when effort needs to be put into a term to etch it in the collective language) to establish themselves as common words (carried by their own intrinsic power). In more recent time, Google is one of those terms. One day we'll find our term and we'll know it just because it will become apparent. Until then, keep creating, keep trying, and just because you invented an incumbent term that is being "attacked" by a new term, don't be defensive about it. </blockquote></div></div> I think you've touched on a number of legitimate complaints about these various terms. As you say yourself, complaints are not solutions, so I think in general until someone can come up with better alternatives his/her complaints are not likely to get much traction. I used to have a similar reaction to 'create', but now I think it's pretty good, and allows for shifting directions of interest, incorporation of new things and ideas. I do agree about 'stuff' being troublesome, even before considering the issues non-native English speakers face. We do have to be mindful of how much various search functions are used to locate things, so it may be that somewhere attached to pages associated with 'create' there needs to be some associated terms that help the site be found when searching for create site content. So in general, when some generic term like 'create', like 'stuff' gets used, how does it get embellished with some additional terms to help focus those of us when we come looking for it? Greg<div><div></div><div> _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list <a href="mailto:CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create</a> </div></div></blockquote></div>