“That is sooooo 1997.”

;-)

Thanks, all, for your input and advice.  More on the project soon, I promise.

I generated much amusement for myself (and now perhaps for others) by contemplating how one could reach a resonant name via some inspiration from some richly textual productions:

The branding firm could approach Jill Walker of jill/txt and ask for a Norwegian name and then leap by association with Unicode (a scheme for the display of all those non-ASCII characters)to the brand name “Intercode”;

The branding firm could be inspired by Matt Kirschenbaum of mgk and his work on “deep inscription” and could think of the work on ekphrasis generated through the wordherder bloggers and then by association conspire to launch the brand name “Deep Description” (shortened ranch-style to “DoubleD”;

The branding firm could delight in Elouise Oyzon of Weez Blog and the word play there which in the past has genereated the expression “elusive ozone” and then recall that that blog author once contributed a comment to a Planned Obsolescence blog entry that gleefully suggested hobo signs as codes of welcome (and leap to a recall of George Williams’s recent mention of “HoBo” [a site formerly known as History of the Book @ Oxford])and by association create the brand name “Hobo Dimensions”;

interhobo dimensions == IHD

and now run IHD through a search engine and enjoy the wash of associations…. (one of my favourites is the reverse DHI—Door and Hardware Institute—Your Architectural Openings)

One could have fun with KF + PO and play with call letters…

KFPO—sound like a public radio station

POKF

PKFO

KPOF—close to that book publishers name :)

There is always the sigil route… “The Academic Co-operators Formerly Known as Faculty”

I think that’s why I’d shy away from MediaTexts.  I understand (and agree with) your point Matt; sure, it’s all code (although after your talk - isn’t it all electrons?).  But given that the centrality of text is a sort of hotspot, esp. in interdisciplinary circles, I’m not sure the caveat would appeal to most people.

The thing I like about Commons is that, for me (and perhaps I should note that I was initially lukewarm to the name), it gives the impression of a meeting place for an exchange of various disparate views - an interdisciplinary forum .

Whatever it’s called in the end, I think it’s a fab idea KF.

Allow me to quote yourself back….

quote–>>Or, most riskily, perhaps, is there a means of escaping the academic-press model of publication entirely, moving to some new system of peer-review and manuscript-editing that sheds the antiquated structures of press bureaucracy and economics in favor of an open-source, communal mode of intellectual discovery?