Process Transparency - Revision history

198.92.67.77 at 02:50, 23 March 2007

2007-03-23T02:50:51Z

Ray King at 23:44, 22 March 2007

2007-03-22T23:44:24Z

Ray King: midway save

2007-03-22T23:12:08Z

midway save

Show changes

198.92.67.77 at 21:48, 17 March 2007

2007-03-17T21:48:12Z

Eyaluth at 20:53, 17 March 2007

2007-03-17T20:53:52Z

Eyaluth at 20:53, 17 March 2007

2007-03-17T20:53:33Z

Eyaluth at 20:52, 17 March 2007

2007-03-17T20:52:57Z

Martin at 16:30, 17 March 2007

2007-03-17T16:30:39Z

Martin at 15:54, 17 March 2007

2007-03-17T15:54:51Z

Martin at 15:52, 17 March 2007

2007-03-17T15:52:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:50, 23 March 2007
Line 82:		Line 82:

	:: Allowing the community to take '''early stage risk''': I'd love to, but prior to being public I believe there is a requirement for investors to be "accredited". If you have a way, I'd be happy to learn more. - [[Ray]]		:: Allowing the community to take '''early stage risk''': I'd love to, but prior to being public I believe there is a requirement for investors to be "accredited". If you have a way, I'd be happy to learn more. - [[Ray]]
		+
		+	Ray, I don’t know “for sure ways” to raise enabling funding via a community – I think this space is so new anybody making that claim is probably not credible. I do believe this is a space that should gain more experimentation, to test different models, that increasing the chances that one might work.
		+
		+	As you say it is against SEC regulations to advertise any investment deals to the general public via the web. That said the SEC has an attitude and prior history of allowing experimentation in this area. If one writes them for permission to try this or that approach, if they agree, they don’t send a “we endorse” or “we agree” or “you have permission” statement – rather they just in effect say, “we won’t litigate if you try this” – and with that writing in hand, some companies do some more novel experiments involving money.
		+
		+	The corporate attorneys I am involved with have given thought to raising funding via the web, and said the best way to stay out of hot water is via a nonprofit structure (which as you know is limiting in many ways – one reason Google’s philanthropic organization decided to structure itself as a for-profit entity).
		+
		+	I also think there is a gray area between raising funding for investments versus projects. If one does not promise a guaranteed rate of return, there might be some leeway. I am currently working with some cooperative law attorneys, and with some creative thinking on their part a novel cooperative structure might enable group members to provide early stage risk funding – I’ll let you know how this evolves. [[MartinPfahler]]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 :Martin, let me just say that was a very interesting read.  Unfortunately I  disagree on the main point of what happened at [[RecentChangesCamp.org|RCC]], about how everything can be done without money.  I don't think people we're saying it could be done without money but more without corporate money; nobody really wanted to have any of the "business" people involved in their projects.  Everybody just seemed to think they'd have a community come together and give them tons of money like [[Wikipedia.org|Wikipedia]].  Which is true Wikipedia works great; but, very few projects can get along like that.
-:At [[RecentChangesCamp.org|RCC]] the only projects I saw going ahead we're [[WikiTravel.org|WikiTravel]] (just bought out by a company) and AboutUs.
+:At [[RecentChangesCamp.org|RCC]] the only projects I saw going ahead we're [[WikiTravel.org|WikiTravel]] (just bought out by a company) and [[AboutUs]].
 :I think process Transparency is amazing and I think the combination between the business mind [[Ray]] and the non-profit mind of [[Mark]] will make sure this works.
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 :Personally, who invests in AboutUs, I think I'd like to hear who they are and what they are doing would be really cool the $$ amount invested I don't really need to hear.
-:I'm more interested in having transparency on the day-to-day running of AboutUs and the global position of AboutUs.  Advertising one day was found on AboutUs but yet there was no Community page on it, not that I care about it; but, why not bring it to the Community first to figure out placement and who should the ads be from and whatever.
+:I'm more interested in having transparency on the day-to-day running of AboutUs and the global position of [[AboutUs]].  Advertising one day was found on AboutUs but yet there was no Community page on it, not that I care about it; but, why not bring it to the Community first to figure out placement and who should the ads be from and whatever.
 :Another big thing I would like to see if from Development, I would really like to see what is being worked on, who's doing it, and about when is going to be done, can I make suggestions about it?  -- [[User:Simon Koldyk|Simon]] | <small>[[User talk:Simon Koldyk|talk]]</small> 13:52, 17 March 2007 (PDT)
@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 Suggest away Simon, I'd love to hear it! Perhaps your development issue needs a dedicated page - or is this development topic already introduced elsewhere?(I am no sure). Thanks for your input and take on [[RecentChangesCamp.org|RCC]]. [[MartinPfahler]]
-: There's several good lines of thought here; we should probably refactor this page, but to get some thougths down to start with:
+: There's several good lines of thought here; we should probably refactor this page, but to respond to some things:
+:: Your strong push towards '''greater transparency''' is welcome.  The [[AboutUs Q1 2007 Stakeholder Meeting Notes|Q1 Stakeholder meeting]] is an example of our movement in that direction - but I know you want more :-)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 17 March 2007
Line 70:		Line 70:

	:Another big thing I would like to see if from Development, I would really like to see what is being worked on, who's doing it, and about when is going to be done, can I make suggestions about it? -- [[User:Simon Koldyk\|Simon]] \| <small>[[User talk:Simon Koldyk\|talk]]</small> 13:52, 17 March 2007 (PDT)		:Another big thing I would like to see if from Development, I would really like to see what is being worked on, who's doing it, and about when is going to be done, can I make suggestions about it? -- [[User:Simon Koldyk\|Simon]] \| <small>[[User talk:Simon Koldyk\|talk]]</small> 13:52, 17 March 2007 (PDT)
		+
		+	Suggest away Simon, I'd love to hear it! Perhaps your development issue needs a dedicated page - or is this development topic already introduced elsewhere?(I am no sure). Thanks for your input and take on RCC. [[MartinPfahler]]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 So I am hoping this content might start some interesting and engaging lines of conversation involving process transparency etc., by members of the aboutus community. I am also hoping that aboutus community members will rearrange my content to gain more clarity and hopefully reduce the length of this content. Perhaps this type of content and community dialog could be put under a section called something like, “follow the behind the scenes birthing and growth process of aboutus”. [[MartinPfahler]]
-:* Martin, let me just say that was a very interesting read.  Unfortently I  disagree on the main point of what happened at RCC, about how everything can be done without money.  I don't think people we're saying it could be done without money but more without corporate money; nobody really wanted to have any of the "business" people involved in their projects.  Everybody just seemed to think they'd have a community come together and give them tons of money like Wikipedia.  Which is true Wikipedia works great; but, very few projects can get along like that.
+:Martin, let me just say that was a very interesting read.  Unfortently I  disagree on the main point of what happened at RCC, about how everything can be done without money.  I don't think people we're saying it could be done without money but more without corporate money; nobody really wanted to have any of the "business" people involved in their projects.  Everybody just seemed to think they'd have a community come together and give them tons of money like Wikipedia.  Which is true Wikipedia works great; but, very few projects can get along like that.
 :At RCC the only projects I saw going ahead we're WikiTravel (just bought out by a company) and AboutUs.

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 :* Martin, let me just say that was a very interesting read.  Unfortently I  disagree on the main point of what happened at RCC, about how everything can be done without money.  I don't think people we're saying it could be done without money but more without corporate money; nobody really wanted to have any of the "business" people involved in their projects.  Everybody just seemed to think they'd have a community come together and give them tons of money like Wikipedia.  Which is true Wikipedia works great; but, very few projects can get along like that.
-At RCC the only projects I saw going ahead we're WikiTravel (just bought out by a company) and AboutUs.
+:At RCC the only projects I saw going ahead we're WikiTravel (just bought out by a company) and AboutUs.
-I think process Transparency is amazing and I think the combination between the business mind Ray and the non-profit mind of Mark will make sure this works.
+:I think process Transparency is amazing and I think the combination between the business mind Ray and the non-profit mind of Mark will make sure this works.
-Personally, who invests in AboutUs, I think I'd like to hear who they are and what they are doing would be really cool the $$ amount invested I don't really need to hear.
+:Personally, who invests in AboutUs, I think I'd like to hear who they are and what they are doing would be really cool the $$ amount invested I don't really need to hear.
-I'm more interested in having transparency on the day-to-day running of AboutUs and the global position of AboutUs.  Advertising one day was found on AboutUs but yet there was no Community page on it, not that I care about it; but, why not bring it to the Community first to figure out placement and who should the ads be from and whatever.
+:I'm more interested in having transparency on the day-to-day running of AboutUs and the global position of AboutUs.  Advertising one day was found on AboutUs but yet there was no Community page on it, not that I care about it; but, why not bring it to the Community first to figure out placement and who should the ads be from and whatever.
-Another big thing I would like to see if from Development, I would really like to see what is being worked on, who's doing it, and about when is going to be done, can I make suggestions about it?  -- [[User:Simon Koldyk|Simon]] | <small>[[User talk:Simon Koldyk|talk]]</small> 13:52, 17 March 2007 (PDT)
+:Another big thing I would like to see if from Development, I would really like to see what is being worked on, who's doing it, and about when is going to be done, can I make suggestions about it?  -- [[User:Simon Koldyk|Simon]] | <small>[[User talk:Simon Koldyk|talk]]</small> 13:52, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 17 March 2007
Line 58:		Line 58:

	So I am hoping this content might start some interesting and engaging lines of conversation involving process transparency etc., by members of the aboutus community. I am also hoping that aboutus community members will rearrange my content to gain more clarity and hopefully reduce the length of this content. Perhaps this type of content and community dialog could be put under a section called something like, “follow the behind the scenes birthing and growth process of aboutus”. [[MartinPfahler]]		So I am hoping this content might start some interesting and engaging lines of conversation involving process transparency etc., by members of the aboutus community. I am also hoping that aboutus community members will rearrange my content to gain more clarity and hopefully reduce the length of this content. Perhaps this type of content and community dialog could be put under a section called something like, “follow the behind the scenes birthing and growth process of aboutus”. [[MartinPfahler]]
		+
		+	:* Martin, let me just say that was a very interesting read. Unfortently I disagree on the main point of what happened at RCC, about how everything can be done without money. I don't think people we're saying it could be done without money but more without corporate money; nobody really wanted to have any of the "business" people involved in their projects. Everybody just seemed to think they'd have a community come together and give them tons of money like Wikipedia. Which is true Wikipedia works great; but, very few projects can get along like that.
		+
		+	At RCC the only projects I saw going ahead we're WikiTravel (just bought out by a company) and AboutUs.
		+
		+	I think process Transparency is amazing and I think the combination between the business mind Ray and the non-profit mind of Mark will make sure this works.
		+
		+	Personally, who invests in AboutUs, I think I'd like to hear who they are and what they are doing would be really cool the $$ amount invested I don't really need to hear.
		+
		+	I'm more interested in having transparency on the day-to-day running of AboutUs and the global position of AboutUs. Advertising one day was found on AboutUs but yet there was no Community page on it, not that I care about it; but, why not bring it to the Community first to figure out placement and who should the ads be from and whatever.
		+
		+	Another big thing I would like to see if from Development, I would really like to see what is being worked on, who's doing it, and about when is going to be done, can I make suggestions about it? -- [[User:Simon Koldyk\|Simon]] \| <small>[[User talk:Simon Koldyk\|talk]]</small> 13:52, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 17 March 2007
Line 46:		Line 46:

	Perhaps good and significant things that matter can be accomplished without money (I have seen good projects done by volunteer efforts) yet with money perhaps those same projects could have been done radically faster and more efficiently? Or perhaps certain types of good things that matter can be done on a volunteer bases, and other types or classes of good things that matter require money for execution?		Perhaps good and significant things that matter can be accomplished without money (I have seen good projects done by volunteer efforts) yet with money perhaps those same projects could have been done radically faster and more efficiently? Or perhaps certain types of good things that matter can be done on a volunteer bases, and other types or classes of good things that matter require money for execution?
		+
		+	Note people with wealth at times prefer secrecy. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you want people soliciting you every five minutes of the day for your money? So systems that are more transparent must also factor such privacy issues into the equation.

	These are indeed weighty transparency issues, and I suspect the aboutus community is not the main entity that will be asked if this better transparency will be allowed – rather it is likely the deep pocketed risk investors that must likely give their blessing – because these types of issues can hit a little too close to home for some of these people. But that is the nature of increased transparency – making the “behind the scenes” processes that really lie behind aboutus growth and success, more transparent to the aboutus community.		These are indeed weighty transparency issues, and I suspect the aboutus community is not the main entity that will be asked if this better transparency will be allowed – rather it is likely the deep pocketed risk investors that must likely give their blessing – because these types of issues can hit a little too close to home for some of these people. But that is the nature of increased transparency – making the “behind the scenes” processes that really lie behind aboutus growth and success, more transparent to the aboutus community.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Note when Google first started up they did this IPO process differently, so more of the average public could take part, and the deep pockets on Wall Street did not like it, and some refused to “push” Google stock as a result. There exist types of brokers and sales people that in effect make lucrative commissions on these early stage funding deals, and if one goes more directly to the public for funding (like Google did) these folks might lose their income stream, so are not typically excited about this added “democracy” in the process. Another transparency benchmark might be to allow the community to see who these brokers are and the amounts of their commissions.
-It is also not too far after this IPO that key staff and founders of the high growth business model, if it generators lots of media buzz and interest in the investment community, in effect gain lots of wealth. Another transparency benchmark - how much wealth did these individual gain?
+It is also not too far after this IPO that key staff and founders of the high growth business model, if it generates lots of media buzz and interest in the investment community, in effect gain lots of wealth. Another transparency benchmark - how much wealth did these individuals gain in this process and who are they?
 So at the end of this aboutus birthing process the vast majority of the aboutus community gains no increase in wealth – rather just the “few”. And it is this type of birthing process, especially in technology driven companies, that increasingly puts more wealth in the pockets of the few, and causes an imbalance of wealth and influence in societies.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 In many cases this happens around the time there is an opportunity to sell stock to the public (IPO meaning “initial public offering). Note there is lots of literature one can find on the web, about how this process is corrupt, typically “insiders” and people of more wealth and influence get the opportunity to invest around this IPO time, before the general public – and as a result they make a lot more money than the average Joe or Jane (community member?) that makes a public stock investment
-Note when Google first started up they did this IPO process differently, so more of the average public could take part, and the deep pockets on Wall Street did not like it, and some refused to “push” Google stock as a result. There exist types of brokers and sales people that in effect make lucrative commissions on these early stage funding deals, and if one goes directly to the public (like Google did) these folks might lose their typical income stream, so are not typically excited about this added “democracy” in the process. Another transparency benchmark is to allow the community to see who these brokers are and the amounts of their commissions.
+Note when Google first started up they did this IPO process differently, so more of the average public could take part, and the deep pockets on Wall Street did not like it, and some refused to “push” Google stock as a result. There exist types of brokers and sales people that in effect make lucrative commissions on these early stage funding deals, and if one goes more directly to the public for funding (like Google did) these folks might lose their income stream, so are not typically excited about this added “democracy” in the process. Another transparency benchmark might be to allow the community to see who these brokers are and the amounts of their commissions.
 It is also not too far after this IPO that key staff and founders of the high growth business model, if it generators lots of media buzz and interest in the investment community, in effect gain lots of wealth. Another transparency benchmark - how much wealth did these individual gain?