Difference between revisions of "User talk:Martin"

Latest revision as of 23:30, 8 June 2008

In general I am a student of “process”. I try to observe and understand what really makes things tick. This has relevance to transparency, democracy, and empowerment issues. Sometimes the most important things for the populace to know, are things that some relatively “few” people within the populace don’t want others to know. When students of process are observing and trying to understand your process, they risk being viewed as a pain in the neck – it’s not an activity where one should expect to get lots of “high fives”.

Some subjects that catch my interest are listed below:

RiskSharingPassiveReturn

IncomePilotProject

Topsoil

Process Transparency

RiskParticipation

BetterAutomation

Martin, word to the wise, give a link when sending a message asking someone to look at something, like this: IncomePilotProject. It's now on my watchlist.

consensus

We haven't actually started the WhoWeAre process yet. I think it was a mistake that someone invited every active member there. It's like inviting people to a pool party when the pool's not been dug yet. Conensus is work, that's for sure. All decision-making methods are work. The great thing about a wiki is we can sweep up after ourselves once we've made progress, and all that's left is the result, without the process weighing us down. I haven't actually been following the WhoWeAre page itself yet, because we haven't started the consensus poll. I've been working on Projects:WhoWeAre. I know you've been reading that too. It's been frustrating for me to see all the round and round in circles without any clear proposals. I've been working with folks to see if we could get clear. How do you like the 3 stage idea I posted? TedErnst

"OPPS we made a mistake. There are people at the WhoWeAre page that assume the consensus poll process is already underway (Ted, I myself had this impression). In contrast there are some folks still trying to figure out how to make this consensus poll process more efficient at Projects:WhoWeAre. After we work out some of the bugs then we plan to start the WhoWeAre consensus poll process. Please forgive us for for this misunderstanding, we are learning as we go."

Ted, I think something like the above needs posting at the WhoWeAre page, or people that continue to contribute to this page, under the assumption that the polling process is already underway, are going to get mad if they discover their work was premature. In fact one posting I read already has one person mad for this reason, claming that those that now want to go back and start all over again, are actually hi-jacking the process – which itself is problematic.

In terms of process what this reveals is never ever never invite people to a consensus poll process until it is actually started – or people are going to get mad, and then you have to go back and figure out how to make them happy again.

In contrast if you want to invite people to participate in making the consensus polling process better and more efficient, do not even mention a potential polling topic such as “WhoWeAre” within such invitations, because then people tend to associate the topic with the underlying polling process, when in fact they are actually two completely different beasts. The underlying process can be brainstormed outside of any particular topic. Once people are within this brainstorming polling process area, then one can bring up issues like, “how might this process we have now devised work for this or that type of topic?” – in this context people are less likely to get confused about what is actually happening and the participation role they want to take on.

I think if this issue is not addressed soon on the WhoWeAre page more people might arrive, and more people might end up getting mad. I see no purposeful ill intend, rather just misunderstanding, which I think most people will forgive, since all of this “stuff” is so new and we are learning as we go. My point is somebody needs to make a posting on WhoWeAre and in effect beg for some forgiveness – or don’t you think a mole hole might turn into a mountain?

Ted, below is what I think about your 3 stage idea:

The outcome of this process will be a document for AboutUs.org that says WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree to this stage 1 document , stage 2 begins which will contain Solution Pieces. Stage 2 - Solution Pieces • This stage definition and framework are modifiable in stage 1. Stage 2 is designed to get all the different "pieces" out in the open.

The above is confusing to me. It states, “stage 2 is designed to get all the different pieces out in the open?" Great! but it seems to me that what is so quickly breezed over is stage one, stating (as I understand it), “the outcome of the stage one process will produce a document for AboutUS.org, that says “WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree on this initial version we move on to stage 2”

Seems to me that to do stage 1, one must also get “different pieces out in the open” – so to me, this raises the question, "in terms of the process how is stage 1 “openness” different than stage 2 “openness”?"

Also I think your noble attempt to gain process clarity in others also raises an issue that I see repeatedly raising its head, but we seem to sweep under the carpet (I think I know why). As mentioned some time back, one can classify how people’s brains work in perhaps 3 to 5 different ways.

For example some brain types like a quick overview first to put everything into context. Other brain types view that explanatory process as too much verbiage and initial complexity, rather just want to be steered through the process one step at a time, keeping the next step invisible until they get there. Other brain types don’t like all the text in any sense and would prefer things like flow charts or visual images, etc.

We are dealing with process issues (consensus details) that are foreign or never previously considered by many people, thus there is an underlying learning curve. Make the learning process painful and most folks will stop doing it. An important way to reduce learning curve “pain” is to better tailor explanations to one “brain type”. In this way one does not have to figure out explanations that will make everybody happy and gain more efficient clarity, which from my life experiences is simply not possible (somebody is always left short changed).

In such regard the bigger issue I don’t see being addressed by the aboutus staff and management is, “are we going to spend some of the company's start up money to figure out how to determine peoples' brain types at early stages of visiting our web site?" I argue if this is not done, then over and over again this “how do we best explain this or that” problem will continue to rear its head. In contrast if some basic brain types were determined early on, then people like us, trying to figure out how to better explain process issues, could tailor different explanations or tours, for perhaps 3 to 5 different brain types.

This approach obviously requires more work by people with different skill sets. Content creation folks like us, might produce tour content, but I sure don’t have the smarts to figure out the automation needed to initially filter out the brain types in the first place. Ideally automation would peg each person with some type of code. Then anywhere they go on the web site after this, when an explanation or tour is given, the computer automatically recognizes the person it is dealing with, and they automatically get the tour for their brain type (rather than each time and explanation is needed or wanted having to tell the computer what is their brain type). I know that given enough money and resources this could be made to work – it is a matter of management priorities.

In the world of “explaining” and “learning” and “gaining clarity” the underlying process issue that I bring up is actually the elephant in the room. Not everybody's brain type is the same - first figure out what brain type one is dealing with. Prior to computer automation this process problem was simply not possible to solve, now it is – if relevant resources are committed.

Ibesi.org

Martin, while I was updating some entries on AboutUs last week I found I was unable to access the website for IBESI.org. Kristina also left a note she was unable to access it. Is this group still in existence? Or did the server simply fall over & needs someone to help it up? -- Llywrch 08:46, 14 August 2007 (PDT)

WikiWork

Martin, I'd like to return to WikiWork soon, and see if I can summarize some useful points out of the great ideas you've posted there.

WhoWeAre

Hi Martin. I left you a message here: WhoWeAre:Stage2Status/MartinPfahler TedErnst | talk 13:12, 15 November 2007 (PST)

long tail

thought you might be interested in this: http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/lessons-from-entrepreneur-morten-blaabjerg/ TedErnst (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (PDT)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Some subjects that catch my interest are listed below:
+== [[RiskSharingPassiveReturn]] ==
+== [[IncomePilotProject]] ==
 ==[[Topsoil]]==
 ==[[Process Transparency]]==
@@ Line 12: / Line 14: @@
 ==[[BetterAutomation]]==
-== consensus polls ==
+Martin, word to the wise, give a link when sending a message asking someone to look at something, like this: [[IncomePilotProject]].  It's now on my watchlist.
-Martin, love your energy on this.  Our current focus is on getting lots of examples of small consensus polls that succeed.  Personally, I think that's what's needed to get to your step#1, of a foundation agreeign to try this crazy thig.  We need a track record.  Something we could use help on right now is the consensus poll tour.  Interested in taking a look and either editing directly or providing feedback? [[Portal:ConsensusPolls]] Thanks! [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
+== consensus ==
-: Ted, in terms of providing feedback about consensus polling I just did this at ConsensusPollingAwareness. There I bring up some strategic issues, such as whether a track record of small consensus polls will actually translate or be reflective of polling success process dynamics at much larger scales (million plus). Also in this section when I mention deep pockets it is not in the sense of foundations - I suspect they will be a long shot in contrast to individuals or corporations with deep pockets (from my experiences I have learned that nonprofit philanthropic foundations tend to be risk averse).
+We haven't actually started the [[WhoWeAre]] process yet.  I think it was a mistake that someone invited every active member there.  It's like inviting people to a pool party when the pool's not been dug yet.  Conensus is work, that's for sure.  All decision-making methods are work.  The great thing about a wiki is we can sweep up after ourselves once we've made progress, and all that's left is the result, without the process weighing us down.  I haven't actually been following the [[WhoWeAre]] page itself yet, because we haven't started the consensus poll.  I've been working on [[Projects:WhoWeAre]].  I know you've been reading that too.  It's been frustrating for me to see all the round and round in circles without any clear proposals.  I've been working with folks to see if we could get clear.  How do you like the 3 stage idea I posted?  [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
+-------
+"OPPS we made a mistake. There are people at the WhoWeAre page that assume the consensus poll process is already underway (Ted, I myself had this impression). In contrast there are some folks still trying to figure out how to make this consensus poll process more efficient at Projects:WhoWeAre. After we work out some of the bugs then we plan to start the WhoWeAre consensus poll process. Please forgive us for for this misunderstanding, we are learning as we go."
-Martin,  even if we don't need more of a track record before someone with deep pockets were willing to fund a huge consensus poll, the method is still largely untested.  I don't feel confident yet that we have enough people that fully understand the process to make it work yet on a massive scale.  I definitely think the method is sound, but the people to work the method are still lacking, and the people with the experience facilitating the method are definitely lacking.  We have a ways to go yet in integrating consensus polling into the fabric of how AboutUs gets its work done.  We're learning a ton, even on a small scale, about what it will take to make this work on a large scale.  For example, when someone signs up to participate, they need to give an email address and set their preferences about how often they want to be contacted, all the way from "every change" to "only when the DoneTimer starts", etc.  We also have found recently that we need a way to set someone's status to "inactive" if they don't respond after a certain amount of time.  We're definitely moving forward.  The tour is on the AboutUs company priorities for this two weeks.  I'm working hard to get it done.  I really appreciate your feedback! peace, [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
+Ted, I think something like the above needs posting at the WhoWeAre page, or people that continue to contribute to this page, under the assumption that the polling process is already underway, are going to get mad if they discover their work was premature. In fact one posting I read already has one person mad for this reason, claming that those that now want to go back and start all over again, are actually hi-jacking the process – which itself is problematic.
-''Ted, thanks a bunch for filling me in!
+In terms of process what this reveals is never ever never invite people to a consensus poll process until it is actually started – or people are going to get mad, and then you have to go back and figure out how to make them happy again.
-My personal interest in consensus polling as a process, is as a potentially new way for Joe and Jane to make big (often expensive) things happen, when today for many reasons they simply can’t.
+In contrast if you want to invite people to participate in making the consensus polling process better and more efficient, do not even mention a potential polling topic such as “WhoWeAre” within such invitations, because then people tend to associate the topic with the underlying polling process, when in fact they are actually two completely different beasts. The underlying process can be brainstormed outside of any particular topic. Once people are within this brainstorming polling process area, then one can bring up issues like, “how might this process we have now devised work for this or that type of topic?” – in this context people are less likely to get confused about what is actually happening and the participation role they want to take on.
-From that context consensus polling group size, is to me, a very important issue – without that it’s tough to gain the needed clout, etc. Also from this perspective I try to put myself, not into the shoes of one that is currently in the Wiki community, because I think as a demographic they are still a small slice of the population pie, rather a Joe and Jane that today knows nothing about Wiki culture.
+I think if this issue is not addressed soon on the WhoWeAre page more people might arrive, and more people might end up getting mad. I see no purposeful ill intend, rather just misunderstanding, which I think most people will forgive, since all of this “stuff” is so new and we are learning as we go. My point is somebody needs to make a posting on WhoWeAre and in effect beg for some forgiveness – or don’t you think a mole hole might turn into a mountain?
-In such shoes, I think many people taking the existing aboutus consensus polling tour will lose interest and simply not go through the learning curve. I suspect this is because many will look at the nature of the polling topic(s), then ask themselves how this impacts their personal life, then too often decide it does not have enough relevance or personal upside potential.
+Ted, below is what I think about your 3 stage idea:
-To disconnect the subject of the learning curve burden with the upside potential of a poll topic seems to me, to ignore an important human behavior characteristic. Said another way, I suspect that one can put in lots of hours of work refining and improving the consensus polling tour experience, yet still have little participation by new people (especially those outside today’s Wiki culture), because the poll topic is viewed by them as not having enough personal upside to endure the learning curve.
+The outcome of this process will be a document for AboutUs.org that says WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree to this stage 1 document
+, stage 2 begins which will contain Solution Pieces.
+Stage 2 - Solution Pieces
+•	This stage definition and framework are modifiable in stage 1. Stage 2 is designed to get all the different "pieces" out in the open.
-In contrast if there were a different class of poll topics, with much more potential to have bigger personal upsides for Joe and Jane, if I were creating the tour experience, I would hit Joe and Jane right between the eyes with these issues - upfront. For example:
+The above is confusing to me. It states, “stage 2 is designed to get all the different pieces out in the open?" Great! but it seems to me that what is so quickly breezed over is stage one, stating (as I understand it), “the outcome of the stage one process will produce a document for AboutUS.org, that says “WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree on this initial version we move on to stage 2”
-Joe and Jane, take a look at this (or these few) poll topics. We think these can have a big impact on your life. But to gain the upside potential you have to put some skin in the game – put in some effort – for in the real world nothing is really free. Based on the positive responses from other people just like you, that have already gone through this learning process, we wager that you’ll think it was definitely worth your time and effort. Then one might can add some testimonials, etc.
+Seems to me that to do stage 1, one must also get “different pieces out in the open” – so to me, this raises the question, "in terms of the process how is stage 1 “openness” different than stage 2 “openness”?"
-In such regard I think Joe and Jane would definitely be much more motivated if they saw that a large pot of cash was sitting in a pot, waiting to go into action once the polling was completed. I think as people become more Internet savvy they increasingly become jaded by web sites that are in effect lots of talk and no action (I don’t have to give you the history of omidyar.net), so again they are not motivated enough to actually go through the consensus polling learning curve burden.
+Also I think your noble attempt to gain process clarity in others also raises an issue that I see repeatedly raising its head, but we seem to sweep under the carpet (I think I know why). As mentioned some time back, one can classify how people’s brains work in perhaps 3 to 5 different ways.
+For example some brain types like a quick overview first to put everything into context. Other brain types view that explanatory process as too much verbiage and initial complexity, rather just want to be steered through the process one step at a time, keeping the next step invisible until they get there. Other brain types don’t like all the text in any sense and would prefer things like flow charts or visual images, etc.
-I would not hide the fact that there is some upfront pain (learning curve) involved. One can also slant this learning experience to being humorous, perhaps as if Joe and Jane are going through a military boot camp – maybe even with humorous cartoon pictures of the drill sergeant screaming into their faces.
+We are dealing with process issues (consensus details) that are foreign or never previously considered by many people, thus there is an underlying learning curve. Make the learning process painful and most folks will stop doing it. An important way to reduce learning curve “pain” is to better tailor explanations to one “brain type”. In this way one does not have to figure out explanations that will make everybody happy and gain more efficient clarity, which from my life experiences is simply not possible (somebody is always left short changed).
-One might argue that folks in the Wiki community are so passionate about the “culture” that they are already motivated to endure the consensus polling learning curve burden, where in contrast the uninitiated Joe and Jane public first want to see something like cash in a pot. If this is the case, then one would think that the totality of all Wiki sites and community would have a large enough number of people willing to endure the learning pain – yet I am not seeing this. And even then I think the polling topics would be skewed, and too often not be of interest to Joe and Jane (general populace), still outside the Wiki culture. Having a hot polling top for Joe and Jane, where they are so motivated they will endure the consensus polling learning curve, might just be a new way to lure Joe and Jane into the Wiki ways, whereas today many still don’t find enough personal relevance.''
+In such regard the bigger issue I don’t see being addressed by the aboutus staff and management is, “are we going to spend some of the company's start up money to figure out how to determine peoples' brain types at early stages of visiting our web site?" I argue if this is not done, then over and over again this “how do we best explain this or that” problem will continue to rear its head. In contrast if some basic brain types were determined early on, then people like us, trying to figure out how to better explain process issues, could tailor different explanations or tours, for perhaps 3 to 5 different brain types.
+This approach obviously requires more work by people with different skill sets. Content creation folks like us, might produce tour content, but I sure don’t have the smarts to figure out the automation needed to initially filter out the brain types in the first place. Ideally automation would peg each person with some type of code. Then anywhere they go on the web site after this, when an explanation or tour is given, the computer automatically recognizes the person it is dealing with, and they automatically get the tour for their brain type (rather than each time and explanation is needed or wanted having to tell the computer what is their brain type). I know that given enough money and resources this could be made to work – it is a matter of management priorities.
-Martin, If you know how to get someone with deep pockets to give us money to start something like what you describe, I'm fairly certain that we can build what we now know is missing from the consensus polling process to use in that big effort.  Go for it!  I'm not entirely sure that the general public is interested in putting up with "bugs" in what's still really a beta process, but I'm also willing to work on it, at your lead.  peace,
+In the world of “explaining” and “learning” and “gaining clarity” the underlying process issue that I bring up is actually the elephant in the room. Not everybody's brain type is the same - first figure out what brain type one is dealing with. Prior to computer automation this process problem was simply not possible to solve, now it is – if relevant resources are committed.
-[[TedErnst]]
-Ted, you ask if I know how to get deep pockets to put money into the pot - to provide a consensus polling motivation for the general public. The short answer is no. I also don’t think the general public will be interested in putting up with “bugs” during a beta process. Maybe when folks like Brandon and Ray make their multi billions after an aboutus IPO (typically high growth business model cash in process) they will have an interest in doing such philanthropy. In the mean time due to the typical “no money” available problem I suspect this consensus polling “stuff” will involve rather small group sizes and niche topics for some time into the future.
+== Ibesi.org ==
+Martin, while I was updating some entries on AboutUs last week I found I was unable to access the website for [[IBESI.org]]. Kristina also left a note she was unable to access it. Is this group still in existence? Or did the server simply fall over & needs someone to help it up? -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 08:46, 14 August 2007 (PDT)
-Ted, in terms of increasing consensus polling participation from the general public by gaining their perception that a consensus topic has potential for real action rather than just “talk”, via some initial money in a project execution pot, philanthropic money might not be the best strategic approach.
-Money from philanthropic sources is generally risk averse (due to complex process issues within the philanthropic sector). In contrast in the commercial sector where there are early stage angel inventors and venture capitalists, they are all about covering high early stage risk.
+=== WikiWork ===
-Attracting this type of commercial risk funding involves a sophisticated game of figuring out then telling these risk investors what they want to hear, and part of this game is convincing them that they will make a lot of profit (returns) if they provide their money (this is the same money fueling dynamic that powers aboutus growth).
+Martin, I'd like to return to [[WikiWork]] soon, and see if I can summarize some useful points out of the great ideas you've posted there.
-In such regard one can ask the question, “how can a consensus polling topic generate profit for these early stage investors?” For example if the topic involves creation of an alternative energy mini commuter vehicle, at some point people must buy this gizmo, and then cash becomes available to funnel back to the VCs.
+== [[WhoWeAre]] ==
+Hi Martin.  I left you a message here: [[WhoWeAre:Stage2Status/MartinPfahler]] [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 13:12, 15 November 2007 (PST)
+{{DEFAULTSORT:Martin}}
-Or perhaps these VC’s will fund research to create perennial rather than annual crop plants, with potential to make radical global environmental improvements while feeding more of the world’s poor (see related article in this months “Scientific American” magazine). When these new plants are purchased by farmers, and resulting crop products sold, some of this money can flow back to the VC’s.
+== long tail ==
-When trying to execute such projects a critical process problem as I see it, is that these typical early stage investors want lots of control, since they take a high risk. To break past this typical barrier in effect one makes the following pitch to the VC’s: “Right now you folks make profit by maintaining a high degree of decision making control, in collaboration with very view key executives in a small growth company. In contrast with the new consensus polling process you can make more profit (returns) by giving up more of your typical control, and putting more strategic decisions into the hands of the general populace.
+thought you might be interested in this: http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/lessons-from-entrepreneur-morten-blaabjerg/
+[[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 16:30, 8 June 2008 (PDT)
-In this case the VC’s are betting that if they fund this new model they will make more money – which is the ultimate concern of VC’s. You can bet this pitch is also likely a tough sell, because early stage investors are so used to having high degrees of control, and this flies in the face of their personal life experiences.
-In regard to this line of strategic thinking having lots of collaborating people like you and me brainstorming how to make consensus polling more attractive to angel investor and VC’s, so they put some money in the pot, might have limited value. In contrast the demographic that could have high participation involvement in this brainstorming, is actual angel investors and VC’s. The problem is they are typically very difficult to access, to gain their participation in this brainstorming.
-Folks like Brandon and Ray already have access to these folks, and people like Brandon have lots of passion for consensus polling. If there is a serious aboutus intent to make bigger things happen via consensus polling, seems to me such folks are in a much better position than you or I to bring such money folks into brainstorming process. The aboutus early stage investors might not have interest in this line of discussion, but these investment folks typically operate within a broader investment community, and might know of others that would entertain this type brainstorming and make relevant introductions. Short of this type of “improved” censuses polling brainstorming participation I suspect the consensus polling process will have limited progress relative to making bigger and important things happen (from the perspective of the general populace).
-== Wishing :-) ==
-Hi Martin, I would suggest you ask people to think and respond to [[WikiWork]] that you think is valuable to the conversation. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]
-Mark, I never tried that before because I thought it was bad Wiki etiquette – being too “pushy” - rather if people have interest in the topic they go there on their own.
-Can you suggest the best why to do this? Also should the page be moved to a more appropriate spot?
-I had a prior "make contact" problem. When I made the response to Evan’s paper I wanted to let him know I liked it, but at his Blog I
-discovered that he prefers a certain method of contacting him, that involved too many hoops for me to jump through – yet he is one that I think could add value.
-Also Sam Rose, even though I don’t’ know him and we have never met, would seem a good value adding candidate, based on his content that I read - but I don’t have his email address.
-And other folks that I think could add value, “insiders” like you, Brandon, Ted Ernst, etc. probably already have too many irons in the fire.
-I simply don’t know many folks that I think could add value. One exception is a top USA cooperative attorney, that has relevant passion, also cooperative law experts at the USDA in D.C. (the later entity would have no interest if the nature of the work is just "digital"), but I don’t feel comfortable making this introduction to him or the USDA until after a larger brainstorming group is already formed (the attorney and USDA talent has potential to help form novel national scale cooperative legal structures pro bono).
-In general I think this topic problem is an “extremely” difficult nut to crack, or it would have been solved long ago. My hunch is that unless there are large numbers of ingenious thinking people taking part in the brainstorming, odds of getting the “better way” are a long shot – and I don’t know how to gain this big Internet “awareness”.
-I have also seen some past Internet content along similar lines, that never reaches any type of critical brainstorming mass, and dies away, which makes me wonder if trying to gain the better process solution is like chasing a windmill – and in short order folks participating make that determination so drop out of the dialog.
-This said my ears are open to your thoughts or advice.
-I thought you meant people that were already here.  I hear and agree with you that this is a huge issue.  I am not sure that because it hasn't been solved yet... we can't do something about it.  One thing we might want to do is start re-factoring conversations and ideas for people who do show up to understand more quickly... I will look to try and do some of that. Best, [[MarkDilley]]  (Also, might it be good to talk on the phone for a few minutes?)
-Mark, not sure what you mean by "I thought you meant people that were already here" - on this type of subject matter I'm really open to this or that - my general thinking the more input and viewpoints attracted the better - and as you say perhaps better chance to do something about it. I'm happy to chat with you when you have time - just give me a phone number/day/time or how you prefer to connect.