@Lars2i I think you made some good points here, I have a few other thoughts to add.
I don’t think anybody who just sees the name Open Source Circular Economy Days knows what it is about! We always need to explain everything anyway.
Currently our name is long and difficult to remember, people call it Open Circular Days, OSCDays, Open Source Economy, OSCED, they pronounce it oskadays, oshkadays, etc…
I completely agree - using terms like ‘maker’ or ‘open’ without the ‘source’ provides too much wiggle room, which can lead to problems. See ‘sharing economy’.
Having said that, I think it is okay to have a name which doesn’t include ‘open source’ (for example a more abstract name) but always accompany it with a slogan. eg. Wikimedia Deutschland’s full title is:
Wikimedia Deutschland – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
(Wikimedia Germany - Society for the Advancement of Free/Open Knowledge)
so for us, our logo/letterhead could always include the two elements:
somethingsomething Open Source Circular Economy
and the official name of the Verein could include both name and explanation, just like Wikimedia:
Name - Society for the Advancement of an Open Source Circular Economy e.V
I agree that a lot will be related to events. However, when I think about our community members being involved in political processes, academic studies, books or educational materials, I don’t think this is a technique or an event, I think it is the work of a movement focused on a particular topic.
This work may happen in a collaborative hackathon, or it may not. It may just be a slow, multi-step bureaucratic process.
I agree that changing things may be complicated or confusing for a brief period, but building this movement is a long-term project, and we are still at a very, very early stage. In the mainstream, we’ve had hardly any press and have no name recognition.
I don’t think we are so well-known and established that it would be a major problem for us to change our branding.
I’m not suggesting that we should, or that we must, but I want to point out that if we feel it would be valuable for the long-term movement, I don’t see this temporary difficulty as a huge roadblock, it’s a small issue, and we shouldn’t let it hold us back.
I like the idea of having the inclusive, participatory aspect in the name (or the slogan) but I am not quite as convinced as you are that the word ‘days’ is so evocative of this aspect. I don’t completely disagree, but I don’t feel it very strongly, perhaps there is a better word which could communicate this.