I voted for flowmetrics - I like the idea of measuring what we hope to accomplish. I posted the following in Michael Maranda's discussion on field and space and I think it is appropriate here:

I'm not sure if this is an additional category or a characteristic of "nature-space" but I think of field in this context as "gravitational" or "magnetic". In those fields, "bodies" have an opportunity to "align" themselves into coherent patterns. In a gravitational field, unaligned bodies end up crashing into, and being incorporated by, the aligned bodies.

Perhaps we could think of a consciousness field, where the old ideas of conflict and scarcity created certain patterns of alignments - and where the new ideas of interconnectedness and abundance have the power to create new patterns of alignment.

Using that approach, the metric I have suggested is based on how an "action" either contributes to complexity or reduces complexity in connection with the "System" and existing complexity spirals.

Co was a prefix Brandon and I worked with for a long time before settling on "Beyond Yes." I really like cobundance, though I'm not sure it gets at the flow concept. Flowcentives and flowmetrics both do get at flow, obviously. Flowmetrics seems to cold to me, so I voted for flowcentives.

Might it be useful to give some background around why a change is needed, for those not involved in the discussions so far?

None of the above, they're so US American:-)

Must be the fear of implying something negative, like loss, disaster and charity.

Taking the example of magnetism anf gravity reminds me of being presented some new mass storage devices by an IBM engineer.

"What's this MTBNTI acronym mean here?", I asked.

"Mean Time Between Non Trivial Incidents", he replied.

"Can you describe an example?"

"Yes, contamination between the read/write heads and the platter surface causing mechanical failure"

"So, you mean the head grinding against the surface sending the disk across the room at high velocity, a head crash disaster?"

"Er well, yes, that's about it"

I voted for flowmetrics also, it seemed the most easily understood and clear.

Peace.

As you know, Jean, I'm REALLY into names. But, unless you have a whole lot of money or resources to develop a new brand, names are best if they're immediately intuitive to people. That means either combining existing words like Flow and Metrics, or creating very easy to understand word combinations like cobundance.

If the result is short, like flowmetrics, there is no reason not to combine the words as well. But, if, to really get across what you're doing, it takes more than a short combination of words, by all means use several words, or a couple longer words.

The primary question is: does a word like cobundance or flowmetrics REALLY cover the essence of what you're trying to create. If not, perhaps you'd be better off with a longer name like Targeted Currencies or Common Flow.

Hey, I kindof like that. How about Common Flow? All of the domain names are available, and the contraction commonflow is already in use on Google. That's a good sign that it's a natural term to use. You better grab those names before I do ;-)

It turns out that CommonFlow (along with a gazillion other domain names) has been considered already -- as a name for the new Emerging Futures Network! See Ted Ernst's post at:

http://www.omidyar.net/group/efn/news/15/

That post might give some reasoning behind renaming Targeted Currencies, as well as some possible names to choose from.

Even if CommonFlow is still the best possibility :-)

Problem with flowmetrics is its already used a lot in science and medicine-- for instance, http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/089277902320913288. And I agree with Ted, it does seem kind of cold.

I voted for flowcentives--it seemed most easily understandable and returns not a single result when I Google it.

What about co-abundance? It seems more like English than cobundance.

Thanks for great responses and comments everyone!

If any of you have trouble with the poll, we are requiring that you be a member of Targeted Currencies group.

We really hope to create more language around this emerging field to help convey it more clearly, quickly, and effectively to more people.

I think the poll needed a "none"

I had strong reaction against the terms listed.

Intended respectfully... will think of alternatives.

I have similar concerns as some others here:

If the purpose in creating new nomenclature is to make the whole field more accessible to people without them getting tripped up by the word 'currencies,' then the new word needs to be easily understood and not create even more confusion.

I was immediately turned off by most of the words. I think they're clunky and weird. I voted for flowcentive because it seems to connect most to what we've been trying to create for the past three years. I know that plynosophy (wisdom of flow) is Art's favorite because it so closely connects to the spirit of it - but it has the major problem of being largly unknown by all but greek scholars (which I am not).

Perhaps you should explain in more detail what you're trying to create with each word?

For the record... Plynosophy is my least favorite because nobody will understand it, but it best captured the spirit that I wanted.

I dont think the approach is to search for a term or set of terms. I trust the terms will emerge.

We need the space in which that exchange (dialogue) can be opened.

Thanks for jumping in everyone! We know it wasn't a complete set of options and this is exactly the kind of feedback we're looking for.

A bit of context for this question that some of you already know... Even after hours recontextualizing the word "currencies" it still ends up meaning "money" to people. We're looking to create terminology which helps people hear this as a new field of discourse, but hopefully connects it to something which gives them a glimpse of its significance.

I think of words like biomimicry, nanotechnology, memetics, biometrics, and even chaos/complexity/emergence (old words with new dimensions of meaning which was what I was trying to do with currencies). Ideally I'd like something that makes sense to common people without sounding too trite and dot-com-y for the academics to take seriously.

Michael... please consider this the opening of that space. I'm already surprised by great suggestions and feedback from some people jumping in that I didn't know were interested.

If all of these terms end up being the kindling that gets burned up in the conversation toward a new terminology, so be it. But if they help start the fire...

play with some Anglo Saxon roots :)

(IANAWASP - just W)

wouldn't para-something be appropriate, in the context of beside, beyond or supplementary to an existing system?

Didn't see the discussion at first. Replied with this to Jean's heads up on the poll, and she thought it should go here:

How about "flowknomics" ('k' silent) or "flownamics". Also thinking this is related to "synchronicity" and/or Fullers "synergenics", maybe "flownetics"? "Flow Systems Theory" could be a sub-branch of systems theory. It is good to have different language as we introduce these ideas to different disciplines.

"wouldn't para-something be appropriate, in the context of beside, beyond or supplementary to an existing system?"

I may not be on track with what you're referring to, so feel free to clarify...

Our intention is not to simply act as a supplement to an existing system. There are folks in this domain who have been very diplomatically concerned with being "complementary" to the current monetary system. The point is, we're not just talking about money. In fact, it's a very small part of the systems we design.

Our approach is much more about identifying the flows in a community system that are vital to its health sustainability, whether these are flows of information or resources or trust, and creating new systems to alter existing flows or create new ones. That's why I like the terms that are more centered on flow.

Arthur, we've used 'flowspace' forever. Is it too abstract to be included? (Not that all of this isn't abstract)

Mickki, only as I read this:

"New nomenclature for field formerly known as targeted currencies. Which ones do you like...and can it work both within academic and business fields?"

Wider context understood now.

I love flowspace...and my concern is that it seems to indicate a space or place rather than a field.

Jeff, I think the question I asked framed you for "currency" talk. Which is very much the issue at hand. :-)

OK Jean, so undertanding a little more having looked up flowspace. Would this interpretation of field and space be a mathematical one?

So we are talking about the ways in which currency systems create flows within a set of human objects?

Depends on what discipline you are working in. In my view, the econometrics of flowspace should be as rigorous as physics and chemistry. We need to stimulate discussions of this sort of thing withing disciplines with the mathematical skills to do the analysis and the motivation to press forward into this new territory.

There are greater variety of flows to measure, and some of what is in flow is socially constructed (and therefor constructed in different ways even in the same space)

OK So I'm wondering, might we say for a currency targetted at a domain which is the set of all impoverished persons in a community, the function of applying a targetted currency produces a result within the codomain which is the set of economcially empowered persons. Or is that being too pedantic?

with targeted currencies we are including things/flows other than money ... as well as money

what does the "targetted" intend? that we want some effect?