Defining the basics

[Matt Revelle]

Great meeting you guys yesterday.
Here's a stab of a summary on what the collective would be, based on
the discussion and my own thoughts.

_Purpose and goals_
The collective enables individuals to take jobs that require a variety
of skills by filling project roles with available members.
Individuals set their own rates and receive full payment. A mechanism
to attract smart, talented, and motivated indies and block all
others. Provide a lab and office environment for working. Work with
people that you respect.

_Open questions / How to make it happen_
How are decisions made? Democracy or oligarchy seem to make the most
sense. Perhaps we have a reputation point system, and those points
are used as a weight factor in an individual's vote.

Another use for a reputation point system is to encourage behavior
that's beneficial to the collective. E.g., bring in a kick-ass
independent, get points - bring in someone lame, lose points.

There would need to be dues of some sort in order to cover the expense
of the lab/office space.

Thoughts?

[John Erik Metcalf]

Matt, thanks for kicking things off. Purpose and goals sounds good. I like the idea of a point system very much. Is there something you based this on that could serve as a working example?

Matt, do you know where you'll be living and when you'll be moving?

Cheers!
john
--
sent from my mobile.

[Matt Revelle]

Other than social news sites (reddit, digg, /.) and their point
systems, the only thing that comes to mind is Utu (http://www.savingtheinternetwithhate.com
). Check out the theory page there for a description of what they're
doing. The social news sites are too simple, they don't weight a
user's actions by there reputation. Utu is a bit closer, but I'm not
convinced that it maps well into a small band.

A couple requirements for a reputation system:
- More authority to more reputable members
- A member can approve or disapprove of someone (make a judgement) at
any point in time, for any reason - as long as they have a judgement
event token
- The number of judgement event tokens a member has is based on their
reputation, judgements are earned over time

This could be implemented as a web app. Each member's reputation and
judgements are stored and every member can judge anyone else.

A couple Wikipedia links for trail starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_management

Side note, there are interesting products to be built off reputation
management; especially if Austin is becoming a hub for social and new
media.

I'll be living in Reston, VA, and traveling to Austin as frequently as
permitted, for the next year. I repeatedly reconsider moving to
Austin now and leaving the degree unfinished, but am planning to keep
at it for now.

[David]

Great discussion...these ideas seem good to me.  I think we should get things started right away even if the rules are not set in totality, as I'm sure this type of structure allows for transformation as time goes on.  A couple of things:

1. We need to form a brand together ASAP---according to John, we may already have one built out from a previous collective that was yet to form.  Can we run with that one John?

2. Let's get all our skills out on the table so we know what the "company" is able to handle in terms of projects.  I've posted a page in our Google Groups.  Please add what you bring to the table as a member.

Talk soon.

David H Walker
Co-Founder & Marketing Director, 302designs

512.636.1887 (p)
859.406.0174 (f)
David....@302designs.com
------------------------------------------------------------
302designs : Poetic, Inspirational Apparel
http://www.302designs.com
http://www.302designs.com/blog

[Dusty Reagan]

Hey guys,

This is awesomely good stuff. I wanted to share a few things I've been thinking about.

Last year at SxSWi Bruce Sterling talked about Yochai Bankler's work in "The Wealth of Network." In that Benkler (an economics professor) lists some qualities he's found that makes commons based peer production work. (Think open source communities like Linux.) Since I heard that speech I've been trying to figure out how to apply that model to business. The theory being that if great things are being created for no payment other than social reward, imagine what sort of things could be created if folks were also getting paid!

Here's the list with descriptions. (Some of these descriptions I wrote with business in mind.)

1. Granular work loads - The workload must be able to be distributed across the community
2. Self selected - Members choose to join you. You don't select them.
3. In or out mechanism - Members may contribute 5 minutes of work and leave or 200 hours. Either way the end goal is enhanced respectively.
4. Communication - Need clear communication channels
5. Humanization - The community and its members should work on something that is compelling on a human level.
6. Trust Construction - Members trust each other.
7. Norm Creation - AKA there is a social culture
8. Transparency - No NDA's. No secrete elite VP board room meetings. No unaccounted for monies.
9. Monitoring - The community policies for rotten members
10. Peer Review - Members review and rate each others work. Everyone knows who stacks up in the community.
11. Fairness - It doesn't work if a few people are exploiting the community for their own personal gains. Transparency helps keep it fair.
12. Sustainability - It's gotta' be profitable, or at least break even and be compelling.

So my thoughts are, what if you start with a coworking location where expenses are paid by members. (Members should be freelancers, contractors, or telecommuters.) To become a member you only need 2 things.

1. Pay your dues to cover overhead
2. Have a current member vouch for you

Now imagine a vin diagram with one big circle and a smaller circle inside of it. The big circle is everyone who comes to cowork. The smaller circle is everyone who works in collaboration to build a brand. The inner circle is built out of people who trust each other really well and desire to work on the brand. This group can reach out into the bigger circle for talent. The inner circle is loosely defined but you can tell who's in the inner circle by the amount of work they are doing under the umbrella brand.

The thing about this setup is you don't have participate in building the brand to be a coworker and you're more than welcome to hang out with the people that are working underneath the umbrella brand. Further if you're a coworking member you may do 2 hours of work for the brand, and then decide to never do it again. Or you may work 60hrs per week under the brand. This is the "In or Out Mechanism" above. Not just anyone can get branded work however, you have to have garnered the trust of the person that brought the work in. But it could be an informal thing. Once you've been coworking for awhile and made friends, you may start getting work from them, provided you want "in." If you do a good job, you'll get more work. If you don't do a good job... well you may not be approached with more work.

I think just up a coworking structure takes care of the following list items.

1. Self selected - People choose to join the coworking group, to pay dues, and they also choose to work on the brand.
   
2. In or out mechanism - Members may contribute 5 minutes of work and stop or 200 hours. Either way the brand is enhanced respectively.
3. Communication - Coworkers sit in proximity. The problem here would be client vendor communication. Wouldn't it be cool if the client came to cowork during the life of their project.
   
4. Humanization - The community and its members should work on something that is compelling on a human level. I think the fact that this model is uncharted territory is compelling enough. But when that gets old, we could start doing compelling internal projects, or only take compelling client projects.
   
5. Trust Construction - Members trust each other. This should come naturally because you have to know someone to get in the door, and the only way to work under the "brand" is if people that are already involved in the brand trust you.
   
6. Norm Creation - Coming up with a company culture will happen natural without effort (IMO)

The tricky things left are:

1. Granular work loads - This is just hard. May have to work on it as we go on a project by project bases.
2. Transparency - Maybe for this we make public all monies, including how much individuals are making hourly, and on commissions underneath the brand, as well as how much money the coworking location is making in dues, and how much the expenses are. I think this information should be available to anyone paying dues.
   
3. Monitoring - We'll need security systems. Cameras, key card system, source control for file management, some checks and balances on accounting.
   
4. Peer Review - Maybe this is where we need a rating or recommendation system like your talking about Matt.
   
5. Fairness - This maybe where we need a voting policy. I think transparency will also help here.
   
6. Sustainability - The coworking location will have to make enough money in dues to cover all expenses. And the brand would need to make enough money to encourage people to keep working on it.
   

It's a coworking, knowledge service company, peer production hybrid. Oh yeah, and there's no company structure. Just a brand. All coworkers will come to the table with their own structure (probably sole proprietorships) and their own insurance. The coworking location itself may need to be a non-profit structure so it can get insurance.

Thoughts?

Dusty

[John Erik Metcalf]

just finished the first set of bullets. and i want you guys to know, I have such a big smile... reading on.

--
John Erik Metcalf
tel: 210.724.3619
fax: 563.405.4275
email: jmetc...@gmail.com
web log: http://blog.think27.com
resume&cv: http://linkedin.com/in/jmetcalf27

[John Erik Metcalf]

dusty, i think you've taken this to a new level, and it's great.

it is different than what i had originally conceived. and i personally really like that. i couldn't be more excited about the attention to transparency and reputation.

how does working 2hrs or 60hrs work. seems like you would need to commit to a project for things to get done. also, with anyone being able to join, how do you control the brand? i like very much the example Matt gave with Utu - one of the concepts there is if i bring someone in and they suck, then my points go down as well.

john

[Dusty]

Thanks John! :)

The 2hr / 60hr deal. I believe that would work using 3 of the points
above.
1. *Granular work loads*
2. *In or out mechanism*
3. *Peer Review *

I think you have to look at it from a macro level. You'd break work up
into the smallest unit possible. So say we got a e-commerce site gig.
An example of one unit of workload might be the site template design,
estimated at 16 hrs of work. Whoever took that gig would be committing
to finish that 16hr chunk of work. On a macro level 16hrs of work is
not much of a commitment compared to full time employment. And when
they are done they could up and leave the entire community. If the
designer doesn't complete the gig then he is reviewed poorly and may
not receive other gigs (depending on how poorly he was reviewed). Also
we'd want to put absolutely all knowledge work into version control
(like SVN). Every time someone checks in work, it becomes an asset.
It's not just the finished product that's an asset, it's all the
historical checkins that lead up to that finished work. So if some ass
quit in the middle of the gig, we have all the work he left behind. :)

For software you can use the Agile methodology to break work up into
user stories. Those stories could be granules. They could be up 80hrs
in terms of commitment. Perhaps only folks who are highly reviewed can
get such long term commitments. You'd have to finish small work
granules to gain some respect from your peers. Work loads in terms of
minutes may only happen in high concept like we're doing now. Probably
not in reality though.

Regarding brand control, that's tough. It's tough in how would you
enforce who was able to pimp the brand? If I make a new soda and call
it Coke-a-Cola, I'd get sued for trademark infringement. How do you
make the brand open, transparent, accessible, yet still only available
to the highest reviewed members? You could make a rules that only
people with X reputation can romance clients with the brand. But what
stops Jonny newb from telling his highly successful business owner
uncle about the brand, who then becomes are best new client. On the
same token, what if Jonny newb says our brand can mow lawns, and we
clearly can not mow lawns.... herm....

On Jan 7, 6:10 pm, "John Erik Metcalf" <jmetcal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dusty, i think you've taken this to a new level, and it's great.
>
> it is different than what i had originally conceived. and i personally
> really like that. i couldn't be more excited about the attention to
> transparency and reputation.
>
> how does working 2hrs or 60hrs work. seems like you would need to commit to
> a project for things to get done. also, with anyone being able to join, how
> do you control the brand? i like very much the example Matt gave with Utu -
> one of the concepts there is if i bring someone in and they suck, then my
> points go down as well.
>
> john
>

> On Jan 6, 2008 5:51 PM, John Erik Metcalf < jmetcal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > just finished the first set of bullets. and i want you guys to know, I
> > have such a big smile... reading on.
>

> > On Jan 6, 2008 5:00 PM, Dusty Reagan <dustyrea...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > > Hey guys,
>
> > > This is awesomely good stuff. I wanted to share a few things I've been
> > > thinking about.
>
> > > Last year at SxSWi Bruce Sterling talked about Yochai Bankler's work in
> > > "The Wealth of Network." In that Benkler (an economics professor) lists some
> > > qualities he's found that makes commons based peer production work. (Think
> > > open source communities like Linux.) Since I heard that speech I've been
> > > trying to figure out how to apply that model to business. The theory being
> > > that if great things are being created for no payment other than social
> > > reward, imagine what sort of things could be created if folks were also
> > > getting paid!
>
> > > Here's the list with descriptions. (Some of these descriptions I wrote
> > > with business in mind.)
>

> > > 1. *Granular work loads* - The workload must be able to be
> > > distributed across the community
> > > 2. *Self selected *- Members choose to join you. You don't select
> > > them.
> > > 3. *In or out mechanism* - Members may contribute 5 minutes of

> > > work and leave or 200 hours. Either way the end goal is enhanced
> > > respectively.

> > > 4. *Communication* - Need clear communication channels
> > > 5. *Humanization* - The community and its members should work on

> > > something that is compelling on a human level.

> > > 6. *Trust Construction* - Members trust each other.
> > > 7. *Norm Creation* - AKA there is a social culture
> > > 8. *Transparency* - No NDA's. No secrete elite VP board room

> > > meetings. No unaccounted for monies.

> > > 9. *Monitoring *- The community policies for rotten members
> > > 10. *Peer Review *- Members review and rate each others work.

> > > Everyone knows who stacks up in the community.

> > > 11. *Fairness *- It doesn't work if a few people are exploiting

> > > the community for their own personal gains. Transparency helps keep it fair.
>

> > > 12. *Sustainability *- It's gotta' be profitable, or at least

> > > break even and be compelling.
>
> > > So my thoughts are, what if you start with a coworking location where
> > > expenses are paid by members. (Members should be freelancers, contractors,
> > > or telecommuters.) To become a member you only need 2 things.
>

> > > 1. Pay your dues to cover overhead
> > > 2. Have a current member vouch for you

>
> > > Now imagine a vin diagram with one big circle and a smaller circle
> > > inside of it. The big circle is everyone who comes to cowork. The smaller
> > > circle is everyone who works in collaboration to build a brand. The inner
> > > circle is built out of people who trust each other really well and desire to
> > > work on the brand. This group can reach out into the bigger circle for
> > > talent. The inner circle is loosely defined but you can tell who's in the
> > > inner circle by the amount of work they are doing under the umbrella brand.
>
> > > The thing about this setup is you don't have participate in building the
> > > brand to be a coworker and you're more than welcome to hang out with the
> > > people that are working underneath the umbrella brand. Further if you're a
> > > coworking member you may do 2 hours of work for the brand, and then decide
> > > to never do it again. Or you may work 60hrs per week under the brand. This
> > > is the "In or Out Mechanism" above. Not just anyone can get branded work
> > > however, you have to have garnered the trust of the person that brought the
> > > work in. But it could be an informal thing. Once you've been coworking for
> > > awhile and made friends, you may start getting work from them, provided you
> > > want "in." If you do a good job, you'll get more work. If you don't do a
> > > good job... well you may not be approached with more work.
>
> > > I think just up a coworking structure takes care of the following list
> > > items.
>

> > > 1. *Self selected *- People choose to join the coworking group, to

> > > pay dues, and they also choose to work on the brand.

> > > 2. *In or out mechanism* - Members may contribute 5 minutes of

> > > work and stop or 200 hours. Either way the brand is enhanced respectively.

> > > 3. *Communication* - Coworkers sit in proximity. The problem here

> > > would be client vendor communication. Wouldn't it be cool if the client came
> > > to cowork during the life of their project.

> > > 4. *Humanization* - The community and its members should work on

> > > something that is compelling on a human level. I think the fact that this
> > > model is uncharted territory is compelling enough. But when that gets old,
> > > we could start doing compelling internal projects, or only take compelling
> > > client projects.

> > > 5. *Trust Construction* - Members trust each other. This should

> > > come naturally because you have to know someone to get in the door, and the
> > > only way to work under the "brand" is if people that are already involved in
> > > the brand trust you.

> > > 6. *Norm Creation* - Coming up with a company culture will happen

> > > natural without effort (IMO)
>
> > > The tricky things left are:
>

> > > 1. *Granular work loads *- This is just hard. May have to work on

> > > it as we go on a project by project bases.

> > > 2. *Transparency* - Maybe for this we make public all monies,

> > > including how much individuals are making hourly, and on commissions
> > > underneath the brand, as well as how much money the coworking location is
> > > making in dues, and how much the expenses are. I think this information
> > > should be available to anyone paying dues.

> > > 3. *Monitoring *- We'll need security systems. Cameras, key card

> > > system, source control for file management, some checks and balances on
> > > accounting.

> > > 4. *Peer Review *- Maybe this is where we need a rating or

> > > recommendation system like your talking about Matt.

> > > 5. *Fairness *- This maybe where we need a voting policy. I think

> > > transparency will also help here.

> > > 6. *Sustainability *- The coworking location will have to make

> > > enough money in dues to cover all expenses. And the brand would need to make
> > > enough money to encourage people to keep working on it.
>
> > > It's a coworking, knowledge service company, peer production hybrid. Oh
> > > yeah, and there's no company structure. Just a brand. All coworkers will
> > > come to the table with their own structure (probably sole proprietorships)
> > > and their own insurance. The coworking location itself may need to be a
> > > non-profit structure so it can get insurance.
>
> > > Thoughts?
>
> > > Dusty
>

> > > On Jan 6, 2008 11:02 AM, David < david.wal...@302designs.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Great discussion...these ideas seem good to me. I think we should
> > > > get things started right away even if the rules are not set in totality, as
> > > > I'm sure this type of structure allows for transformation as time goes on.
> > > > A couple of things:
>
> > > > 1. We need to form a brand together ASAP---according to John, we may
> > > > already have one built out from a previous collective that was yet to form.
> > > > Can we run with that one John?
>
> > > > 2. Let's get all our skills out on the table so we know what the
> > > > "company" is able to handle in terms of projects. I've posted a page in our
> > > > Google Groups. Please add what you bring to the table as a member.
>
> > > > Talk soon.
>
> > > > David H Walker
> > > > Co-Founder & Marketing Director, 302designs

> > > > 512.636.1887 (p)859.406.0174 (f)David.Wal...@302designs.com
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 302designs : Poetic, Inspirational Apparelhttp://www.302designs.comhttp://www.302designs.com/blog

>
> > > > Matt Revelle wrote:
>
> > > > Other than social news sites (reddit, digg, /.) and their point
> > > > systems, the only thing that comes to mind is Utu (http://www.savingtheinternetwithhate.com
> > > > ). Check out the theory page there for a description of what they're
> > > > doing. The social news sites are too simple, they don't weight a
> > > > user's actions by there reputation. Utu is a bit closer, but I'm not
> > > > convinced that it maps well into a small band.
>
> > > > A couple requirements for a reputation system:
> > > > - More authority to more reputable members
> > > > - A member can approve or disapprove of someone (make a judgement) at
> > > > any point in time, for any reason - as long as they have a judgement
> > > > event token
> > > > - The number of judgement event tokens a member has is based on their
> > > > reputation, judgements are earned over time
>
> > > > This could be implemented as a web app. Each member's reputation and
> > > > judgements are stored and every member can judge anyone else.
>

> > > > A couple Wikipedia links for trail starters:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org...

>
> > > > Side note, there are interesting products to be built off reputation
> > > > management; especially if Austin is becoming a hub for social and new
> > > > media.
>
> > > > I'll be living in Reston, VA, and traveling to Austin as frequently as
> > > > permitted, for the
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[John Erik Metcalf]

very good. i'm not especially familiar with agile development - but i get the gist.

as for the maintaining the brand... as you said, seems like mostly uncharted waters. i'm sure  it will work itself out as we go. cesar, any thoughts?

> > > > systems, the only thing that comes to mind is Utu ( http://www.savingtheinternetwithhate.com

> > > > ).  Check out the theory page there for a description of what they're
> > > > doing.  The social news sites are too simple, they don't weight a
> > > > user's actions by there reputation.  Utu is a bit closer, but I'm not
> > > > convinced that it maps well into a small band.
>
> > > > A couple requirements for a reputation system:
> > > > - More authority to more reputable members
> > > > - A member can approve or disapprove of someone (make a judgement) at
> > > > any point in time, for any reason - as long as they have a judgement
> > > > event token
> > > > - The number of judgement event tokens a member has is based on their
> > > > reputation, judgements are earned over time
>
> > > > This could be implemented as a web app.  Each member's reputation and
> > > > judgements are stored and every member can judge anyone else.
>

> > > > A couple Wikipedia links for trail starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org...

>
> > > > Side note, there are interesting products to be built off reputation
> > > > management; especially if Austin is becoming a hub for social and new
> > > > media.
>
> > > > I'll be living in Reston, VA, and traveling to Austin as frequently as
> > > > permitted, for the
>

> ...
>
> read more »