Talk:Holacracy/Archives/2014

Clarity on the registered mark status
The whole article as it was didn't spell out properly that this is one of the many possible approaches to flat organization structures, and it's actually and clearly a trademarked, company-led initiative, even if parts of it are under creative commons. The model is good, but it's misleading to present it as a generic model, which is not. It's a tightly controlled structure, with a consulting firm behind it. Unfortunately it's good PR for them that this confusion exists, and of course they do nothing to make that distinction clear in the press. Let's try to not fall into that trap on Wikipedia. I'm fine to keep the page on even if it's a specific brand, but let's be very clear about it: an ® is not enough. ;) Folletto (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you think "®" is not enough, as it means it's a trademark. In any case, explaining that it's a trademark in the first paragraph is over-emphasizing this aspect as if something special. Most other pages of open source products that are trademarked don't emphasize this aspect, so it seems unbalanced to do it here. In addition, the trademark is one of the properties of Holacracy, not its definition. For these reasons, I don't think it has its place in the intro paragraph. However, I agree it's worth mentioning and it should probably even have its own section on the page, to be sure that everybody sees it. I would look at the Firefox page for inspiration. ankara (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's not enough because of the misrepresentation it's getting in the media and the press, that keeps confusing it as a general structure instead of a specific model. But I see your point there. "®" is not enough because doesn't clarify clearly the distinction. Note that "holacracy" sounds too much like "hierarchy" and "democracy", which are concepts, while "Firefox" is clearly a unique product name, so there's no confusion possible. It would be like a browser called "Browser®" that the media keeps referencing as "the browser", ignoring all the others and taking it as a reference for the more general paradigm. Would be quite an issue, wouldn't it? Plus the same people at HolacracyOne prefer that clarification to happen. :) I drafted a new section, have a look at it. I'd also add some details in the "Origin" section, that currently reinforces the "generic" message, and doesn't cite HolacracyOne, which should be a given since it's a commercial model. Do you agree? :) Folletto (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I see your point on the risk of confusion with a generic model. I believe it's great to have a new section for the trademark aspect. I've slightly updated the new section to reflect what it covers (not only trademark, but also the copyright of the holacracy constitution). I looked at the Origin section after your comment and I agree with you that it doesn't help clear the confusion. I've updated it by simply swapping the paragraphs, and I think it's much clearer that way. Good job ankara (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Now it's well laid out. Thanks. :) Folletto (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)