Build-out proposal from the Brattleboro Tech Collective
Peter Deitz
Attached is the proposal I want to share with you that we have received
from the Brattleboro Tech Collective (http://www.brattcollective.com).
Allen Gunn referred them to us with extremely high praise for their Ruby
on Rails ability and professionalism. I plan to call their second
reference on Monday for additional info.
My questions to you: do the hours seem realistic? are there deliverable
items we left out of the proposal? any words of wisdom before signing an
agreement?
This is a big contract... consuming nearly 1/3 of our financial
resources. Any thoughts?
All the best,
Peter
Here's an excerpt:
*Development Model:*
We are a "small a agile" shop, meaning we don't strictly adhere to a
predefined “agile” methodology. However, we follow the spirit of agile
development through small iterative cycles, flexible requirements, frequent
testing with ongoing client involvement, and pair programming.
The software that BTC develops is open-source. This means the code is
available for others to use and modify under the GNU General Public
License. We believe that this method of development not only yields higher
quality software but also advances a kind of development that makes
software more accessible and more usable for a variety of different kinds of
projects. This process creates a community of developers who are all
contributing to making better software available to the general public.
Clients always retain full rights to the actual content on their
website. The
open source part refers to the software that is powering the delivery of
that
content.
*Our labor rate for non-profits ranges from $90/hr. to $140/hr:*
We offer sliding scale rates from $90 to $140 an hour to our non-profit
clients in order to try our best to meet the financial capabilities of
who we
are working with.
We ask of you, the client, to choose a figure within that scale that
represents your financial capacity while still respecting our work. The
low end of the scale covers our operating and minimal living costs, the
high end of the scale reflects our standard industry rates.
*Project Cost and Timeline Estimates:
*/Direct API connections for 3rd party dev/ -- 11 hours
This will include identifying data to expose to the API, deciding on the
API format, implementation (feed action/sub-action, respond_to API,
etc), and clarifying types of queries that will be available at the API
level.
/Direct API connections for platforms/ -- 30 hours
This will include defining the API to get data into the system,
piggybacking on rails generic API support, possibly task scheduling if
we use a ping model, and spending time building either an aggregator
or a push API.
/Lightning fast intuitive search/ -- 24 hours
This will include choosing a platform, integrating it with Social Action's
Rails environment, and developing an advanced search specific to
Social Action's needs.
/Third party filtering integration/ -- 8 hours
This will include design work for storing extra data in our
data/interchange model, and integration with third party systems.
/Action tracking/reporting/ -- 6 hours
This includes making action URLs pass through a Social Actions
redirect in order to track and report on traffic passing through the
search interface and third-party web applications.
/Admin interface/ -- 15 hours
This will include an admin interface that will permit non-technical users
to add feeds to the system, manage platform profiles, and modify or
delete individual actions.
/Miscellaneous /-- 25 hours
This includes source control setup, server setup/configuration,
meetings, process management, etc.
When determining the rate you'll choose within our sliding scale, keep in
mind that given the total estimate of 119 hours, your estimated cost will
range from $10,710 at $90/.hr. to $16,660 at $140/hr.
*Closing:*
Peter, I thank you for your time in considering our collective’s interest in
working on your project.
Heather Cronk
Otherwise, this is exciting!
-Heather
Peter Deitz
Thanks for the input. There seems to be a general consensus that the
contract should include targets for the deliverables. I'll make sure
the final contract includes a timeline.
I realize we didn't do a whole lot of promotion about the contract
opportunity. I didn't, for example, post the RFP on workingwithrails.com.
Is anyone opposed if I go ahead with the contract phase of the
negotiation?
All the best,
Peter
JoeSolomon
socialsourcecommons.org), I'm confident Bratt will do an excellent job
and that the contract process will help refine the project's details
and expected outcomes.
One thing I really want to push for in the contract is the ability to
query by category. This will require thinking about ways to create
rough overlapping categories for the majority of the platforms.
Change.org organizes by Animals, Arts & Culture, Education,
Environment, Health, Health Services, International, Public Advocacy,
& Religion.
Care2 organizes by Animal Welfare, Corporate Accountability,
Education, Environment and Wildlife, Health, Human Rights, Media,
Arts, Culture, Politics, Spirituality and Religion
Kiva is all about micro-lending in the developing world & DonorsChoose
is all about education.
Many of the other platforms, it seems, aren't so easy to create a
taxonomy for.
This will require brainstorming as a team and a solid execution from
Bratt.
Looking forward to talking more about this! Ideas welcome!
-- Joe
On Jul 15, 6:49 am, Peter Deitz <peterde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Heather,
>
> Thanks for the input. There seems to be a general consensus that the
> contract should include targets for the deliverables. I'll make sure
> the final contract includes a timeline.
>
> I realize we didn't do a whole lot of promotion about the contract
> opportunity. I didn't, for example, post the RFP on workingwithrails.com.
>
> Is anyone opposed if I go ahead with the contract phase of the
> negotiation?
>
> All the best,
> Peter
>
> Heather Cronk wrote:
> > I'm certainly no expert, but this seems to be not out of the ordinary
> > to me. I'd just want to be really, really clear about the development
> > timeline, the degree to which they'll let someone(s) check out their
> > work throughout the process, who that person (or those people) should
> > be, etc. They're essentially working with a very different kind of
> > "organization," so I'd want to be sure that our and their expectations
> > along the lines of process are very clear.
>
> > Otherwise, this is exciting!
>
> > -Heather
>
Peter Deitz
The functionality you describe is what Gunner called meta-level data --
that is, information about the actions we add / deduce.
I'm thinking of including several kinds of meta-data in this build-out:
1) Cause area
2) Percent completion
3) Type of action (petition, fundraiser, offline meet up, etc)
4) Related pictures (brought in perhaps using API's from DayLife,
Calais, or something similar)
5) Keyword extraction
6) Rank in Del.icio.us and Digg (via the AideRSS API)
7) Popularity (whether people are clicking on the action when they see it)
8) Trigger events (when you click on this action, something happens,
like a company donates money to Kiva)
Can you think of other kinds of meta-data we could add to the actions?
Again, quoting Gunner, it's this meta data that will ultimately add
value to our system.
All the best,
Peter
Lexi Hansen
Is it too soon to starting thinking about meta-data regarding "expert"
opinions or something that would include the possibility to rank the
projects based on certain criteria? Or is that the plan for a later
expanded build?
Lexi
Peter Deitz
Thanks for the question, and welcome to the Social Actions Google group.
By way of introduction, Lexi is a "real world" friend of Christine.
She's working on a PhD thesis in Jordan on leadership and collaborative
learning.
From Lexi's Social Actions blog intro: "I am currently researching
leadership and collaborative learning (among lots of other buzzwords)
for my PhD dissertation in Jordan. I have a background in participatory
community-based planning, development, and evaluation. I am intrigued by
the ideas of P2P philanthropy and wish to help non-expert donors learn
how to rate P2P projects."
Lexi has a blog at:
http://bloomoon.wordpress.com/
To answer your question, I would love to hear your thoughts on how we
might go about 'ranking' expert opinions on individual opportunities.
For the time being, the Google group is a good please to have the
discussion. Eventually, we'll want to move these discussions over to a
group in the Social Actions blog (maybe in a Social Actions Labs group
or the Social Action Platforms group).
Personally, I would love to see a rubric developed for evaluating social
action campaigns -- not so much ranking, but categorizing the 'theories
of change' that an action entails. This categorization system can be
built into our search interface / open API as meta data, or could be
developed as a third party application that then feeds information back
into the system.
To determine an action's theory of change, we would want to identify a
range of indicators (which don't necessarily run along a good/bad
spectrum). Instead, they would be more like a color spectrum. Some
people like blue over red. Other people prefer red over blue. If we
know where an action falls along these indicators (independent of the
cause area), we could make better recommendations to people on which
actions they might appreciate.
A few potential spectrum:
High Depth of Engagement, Low Number of Participants <--> Low Depth of
Interaction, High Number of Participants
Wallets <--> Hands
One off, context specific action <--> Context independent, Easily replicated
Person to Person <--> Institution as Intermediary or Service Delivery
Anonymous Initiator <--> Trusted Initiator (sometimes, anonymity is an
asset)
Wealth/Knowledge Redistribution <--> Autonomy Fostering / Community
Assets Driven
Any thoughts?
An important point for me is that we find distributed / independent ways
to categorize actions based on these spectrum. We don't want a group of
editors deciding arbitrarily where an action falls. The process should
be transparent, out of our hands (as Social Actions builders), and well
documented.
All the best,
Peter
SHAUN CALLAHAN
Shaun Callahan
Chief Involvement Officer
CollectiveX
Where Groups Make Things Happen - Today!
ph: 410.715.1400 x84
fax: 410.715.1450
Peter Deitz
Thanks for the tip. We'll probably need a custom built system, but I'll
keep Groupsites in mind. I'd definitely like to follow-up with you
about our conversation last week. Can you email me off list with a
suggested time?
All the best,
Peter
> *Shaun Callahan*
>
> Chief Involvement Officer
>
> *CollectiveX *
>
> /Where Groups Make Things Happen - Today!/
>
> sh...@collectivex.com <mailto:sh...@collectivex.com>
>
> www.collectivex.com <http://www.collectivex.com/>
>
> www.groupsites.com <http://www.groupsites.com/>