Re: Web:Introduction: Rename "Our Goal" box (issue 48430043)

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Peterson" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Urs Liska" <address@hidden>; "Lilypond Dev" 
<address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Web:Introduction: Rename "Our Goal" box (issue 48430043)


> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <address@hidden>
> >
> >
> > > > I believe I had suggested "purpose." I realize that's not much better
> > > > than goal/mission, but it's less corporate than "mission," and is more
> > > > focused on why we exist than what we think we've accomplished (as goal
> > > > and objective are), in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Carl P.
> > >
> > > Yes I recall that. For me this somehow sounds wrong - but again that may
> > > be due to my non-native "ear".
> > > Phil, what do you think about "purpose"?
> > >
> > > Urs
> >
> >
> >
> > To me, it's a very uninspiring word.  NASA had a goal of landing a man on
> > the moon (http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html).  Its purpose was much 
> > more
> > mundane.
> >
> > --
> > Phil Holmes
>
> Would "vision" be better? I realize this will sound to some people as
> corporate as "mission," but there you go.


Sigh.  Visions are defined as not achievable - that's the point of them.

Please feel free to write to JFK about his poor choice of words.  The more I 
consider it, the better "goal" is.

--
Phil Holmes