Fwd: [biocurious] Important Update from Kristina

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Kristina Hathaway <kristina...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Subject: [biocurious] Important Update from Kristina
To: "biocuriou...@googlegroups.com" <biocuriou...@googlegroups.com>, biocurious <biocu...@googlegroups.com>, "inner...@biocurious.org" <inner...@biocurious.org>

Dear Everyone,

I am writing to let you know I will no longer be involved in day-to-day operations for BioCurious. As you know, I have been open about our precarious cash position since December of last year. Raymond and I have held meetings, updates, presentations, and asked for help repeatedly.  Yet despite all this, and lots and lots of hard work by me, and a handful of very dedicated others, it hasn't gotten better.  

I'm frustrated. I've heard lots of suggestions and ideas - most of them several times over - by many, many people. Yet, when these same people are specifically asked to *take action and get involved in implementing the ideas* there's silence. Most people want to suggest alternatives, many of which are impractical, and a scant few actually want to DO THINGS.  

I have been doing the lion's share of running BioCurious for over two years. I receive no financial compensation (in fact, it takes paid time away from my paying gigs). 

I have heard from several people that they would be more involved if other board members were more involved, doing more hands-on work, and/or if the accolades for the space were more evenly distributed. I don't have sole control over this, but I get that it's frustrating. It is for me too. 

Despite repeated and ongoing requests for specific help, I've received criticism for the fact we don't do better marketing, have more financial data prepared on a monthly basis, have a more complete and consistent class schedule, and many other things that are simply not feasible when it's just me trying to do the work.  I’m seeing lots of political maneuvering and divisive finger pointing at a time when we should be banding together to turn things around. It’s sad, and it's shameful.

So - I'm stepping back from all of my day to day duties, and hoping that those who actually get things done will step up to fill in the gaps.  Here's a list of what responsibilities will be covered, and what will not:

·       *  Member/Volunteer Orientation - NO ONE (previously, Raymond and Mark Kent covered the safety portion) 

·        * Day-to-Day Finances – NO ONE

·        * Curriculum Development (lab and non lab) - NO ONE

·       *  Instructor Development (lab and non lab) - NO ONE

·        * Corporate Education - NO ONE

·        * Quick Books - Jason 

·        * Social Media (Facebook, Twitter) - NO ONE

·        * Volunteer Coordination – Jenney

·        * Marketing - NO ONE

·        * Newsletter - NO ONE

·        * Ordering & Restocking – Anitha

·        * Phone Call Coordination (responding to external call inquiries) - NO ONE

·        * External Email Information Requests - Raymond (needs an additional    person)

Raymond is still taking responsibility for several areas, including business development, safety, media, and lab architecture, but I know he has some of the same frustration that calls for help haven’t been answered with action. If you’re interested in those areas, contact him directly.I would like to see BioCurious succeed. If you want to take over an area listed above, contact me and I’ll do a proper transition with you.  

We have a board meeting later this month to talk about the future of the space. I will be back to you with additional updates after that board meeting. If the future of BioCurious really matters to you – this is your chance to step up and take action.  

Until then,

Kristina 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "BioCurious" group.
To post to this group, send email to biocu...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
biocurious+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/biocurious?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BioCurious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to biocurious+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[Jonathan Cline]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:03:58 PM UTC-7, Bryan Bishop wrote:

From: Kristina Hathaway <kristina...@gmail.com>

 

Yet despite all this, and lots and lots of hard work by me   ....

 

Yet, when these same people are specifically asked to *take action and get involved in implementing the ideas* there's silence. Most people want to suggest alternatives, many of which are impractical, and a scant few actually want to DO THINGS.  

Welcome to open source.  It's called the Long Tail.   In which 1 person does 99% of the work and the audience of people offer (often snide) comments.

 

I have been doing the lion's share of running BioCurious for over two years.

Welcome to open source.

 

I receive no financial compensation (in fact, it takes paid time away from my paying gigs). 

Welcome to open source.

 

Despite repeated and ongoing requests for specific help, I've received criticism for the fact we don't do better marketing, have more financial data prepared on a monthly basis, have a more complete and consistent class schedule, and many other things that are simply not feasible when it's just me

Welcome to open source.


If you don't like doing open source, there's another fine system to employ, which is based on biology, in fact -- it's called capitalism.

 

## Jonathan Cline
## jcl...@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################

[Cathal Garvey (Phone)]

Since when is "coop" equal to "open source"? Come to that, when did "open source" become an alternative to Capitalism, and not merely Free Software's less rights(-and-business)-focused stepchild?

Odd sort of screed. I get the impression you're only posting to have a jab at something totally unrelated where you'll get an audience.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Cathal Garvey (Phone) <cathal...@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:

Since when is "coop" equal to "open source"? Come to that, when did "open source" become an alternative to Capitalism, and not merely Free Software's less rights(-and-business)-focused stepchild?

In fact, open source is the capitalism side of free software. OSI etc.

[Cathal Garvey]

> In fact, open source is the capitalism side of free software. OSI etc.

Complicated assertion. It's commonly held that "Open Source" is
friendlier to "business" than "Free Software". But what that really
means is "friendlier to other businesses", at the expense of the
software author.

If you write software for your own work, and you want to share the
source code (and you should), but you're concerned that competitors
will steal your work without reciprocating, then you should not use
"Open Source" licenses, you should use "Free Software" licenses,
because that way your competitors are legally obliged to reciprocate
and return any improvements upon your code, or simply not use your code.

So when people suggest that a developer use a "business friendly open
source" license, they're generally suggesting they make useful idiots of
themselves.

Neither license is less or more capitalist than the other if we assume
the rainbows-and-sunshine myth of
capitalism-as-productive-entrepreneurialism, though "Open Source" is
certainly closer to the reality of
I'll-rent-you-water-so-you-can-survive-to-pump-more-for-me-tomorrow
capitalism, and was created as a fearful reaction to the more
egalitarian, yet more commercially valid for those who embrace it, Free
Software movement.

All of which is irrelevant to the discussion. "Free/Libre" and "Open
Source" are both paradigms for development of products; perhaps not
exclusively for software and source code, but not very appropriate for
discussion of organisations.

Organisations, at least where I live, are already "open source" to
whatever extent is meaningful; you can, with a little investigation,
get information on business model, annual returns, executives,
employment numbers, etc.
It's kind of like when we discuss "open source biology", even though at
present there's only one real "language" in biology that's analogous to
raw binary in computers, so there's no "source" to speak of except DNA
itself. And DNA can't be obfuscated. You could say "Open Source DNA
Design Files", but "Open Source DNA" confuses a lot of boundaries.

So yea, not really sure why this was raised in the first place.
Good luck biocurious friends; pretty much every co-operative or
collective venture goes through this phase as raw momentum gives way to
a need for structure. I'm confident ye'll sort it out.

[Jonathan Cline]

"There are many interpretations of what open science means, with
different motivations across different disciplines. Some are driven by
the backlash against corporate-funded science, with its profit-driven
research agenda. Others are internet radicals who take the
"information wants to be free" slogan literally. Others want to make
important discoveries more likely to happen."
-- The Guardian, 'Open science: a future shaped by shared experience'
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/may/22/open-science-shared-research-internet


The original kickstarter for Biocurious was "produced by the Network
for Open Scientific Innovation, a 501(c)3 non profit organization. Our
mission is to gather all stakeholders who want to liberate our
scientific and technological commons to enable an new era of
decentralized, distributed innovation to solve humanity's greatest
challenges."
-- http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/openscience/biocurious-a-hackerspace-for-biotech-the-community





--

[Cathal Garvey]

Correct; not "Open Source", which implies there exists a closed source
base to open.

"Open Science" is a nebulous enough phrase, but at least it doesn't
make falsifiable claims (which makes it bad science! :P) to having a
"source" to speak of.

Now, there's plenty of room for discussion on the applicability of
"Open Source" to science that possesses a sort of source-base, such as
data-heavy research, but that still doesn't apply to or justify a
screed against a co-operative venture like Biocurious.

[SC]

Hi everyone,

The situation with Biocurious is different from my own non-profit, but there are enough similarities that I think it might be of general interest if I posted them here.

 

In 2004 I started a non-profit to handle my own biotech interests.  I was completely inexperienced on what it takes to run (and fund) one.  Since I had numerous people that seemed very interested, and the web was full of ways that non-profits raise money, I assumed everything would come together and work out.  Of course, it didn't.  I spent the next two years trying to stir up people's interest enough to get things done as a collaborative effort. Nope. I also spent that time trying every method I could find to get funding.  Minor successes, but in the long run, nope.  I found it was easier to get a little funding for new projects but nothing that was already underway, and certainly nothing for general operating expenses.

 

After two years, I made some decisions. 

 

1) No one gets to "help" unless they convince me that they will carry through, and also that they have a demonstrated history of getting things done.  For this they get their projects worked on.  I now have only six people, but they are very involved and have their own motivations and their own rewards.

 

2) I set up two outside companies whose sole purpose was to generate income for the non-profit, to use as I see fit.  The companies have abosolutely nothing to do with biotechnology, or even science. I don't need to report to anyone (except the IRS), and I can change my mind about priorities whenever I want to.    This decision was the best I ever made.  Plenty of cash now, and I haven't asked for, or needed, a donation for several years.  It takes some time to run the silly companies, but not nearly as much as I used to spend writing applications for tiny grants.

 

Anyway, I see the story of Biocurious and I get it, really, I've been there. Funding issues can be very trying, and attempting to motivate people when they didn't show up with their own motivation can be worse.  My advice would be to expand only as much as you have (good) people to tend to things, and look for more stable long-term sources of money if if they are unrelated.  I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.

 

Stacy

[Bryan Bishop]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM, SC <stac...@yahoo.com> wrote:

2) I set up two outside companies whose sole purpose was to generate income for the non-profit, to use as I see fit.  The companies have abosolutely nothing to do with biotechnology, or even science. I don't need to report to anyone (except the IRS), and I can change my mind about priorities whenever I want to.    This decision was the best I ever made.  Plenty of cash now, and I haven't asked for, or needed, a donation for several years.  It takes some time to run the silly companies, but not nearly as much as I used to spend writing applications for tiny grants.

I think it would be interesting to see this method applied to other hackerspaces (or even BioCurious) where you take the raw talent and turn it into contracting or CRO-related income. You can easily cover that 5k/mo operating expense with just one or two contracts in the biotech space. Of course, then you get into weird situations about what gets priority in the lab, but keeping the operations separate is a good idea that can prevent those priority conflicts.

Why did you choose non-biotech for those two companies?

- Bryan

http://heybryan.org/

1 512-203-0507

[SC]

I briefly tried to do that, but in order to compete effectively for biotech contracts I'd need economy of scale.  With a home lab, even a very well equipped one, doesn't have that.  Anything other than standard processes would have been too time consuming and a constant parade of headaches.  I'm happy with my current arrangement, though.

[John Griessen]

So, tell us more about your non-bio cash cows... Why would they work for your average scientist?
Are you an engineer? Are you a wheeler dealer construction contractor? Warehouser/retailer?
What?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM, John Griessen <jo...@industromatic.com> wrote:

So, tell us more about your non-bio cash cows...  Why would they work for your average scientist?

I don't think anyone claimed that they would? I don't see where this is coming from.

[John Griessen]

On 09/01/2013 10:51 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM, John Griessen <jo...@industromatic.com <mailto:jo...@industromatic.com>> wrote:
>
> So, tell us more about your non-bio cash cows... Why would they work for your average scientist?
>
> I don't think anyone claimed that they would? I don't see where this is coming from.

On 08/29/2013 12:48 PM, SC wrote:> Biocurious is different from my own non-profit, but there are enough similarities that I think

it might be of general interest

If it is of general interest, maybe it is repeatable... That's all I'm thinking. And stories of making one's
way in the world creatively are always interesting to hear.

[SC]

It's actually a little embarassing.  I got into the bead import business and it did incredibly well.   I consulted with a non-profit lawyer to make sure all the income would be tax-free.  It takes time, but I found it worked for me to fund the DNA side of things.  It's mostly pleasant, sorting colorful strands of beads when a gel was running, knowing the proceeds would be used for sequencing and buying more enzymes.  So far it's funded two major projects, and part of one student's PhD. It suits my personality better than grant-writing, which I always found sort of stressful.

 

Note: if anyone is thinking of an unrelated business activity to support a non-profit, it's important to set it up correctly so you don't get stuck paying taxes.  I'll be happy to answer any questions about my own experiences, but I'm not a professional tax advisor.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Griessen]

On 09/02/2013 07:54 AM, SC wrote:
> It's actually a little embarassing. I got into the bead import business and it did incredibly well.

Doesn't sound any worse than many kinds of kickstarter premiums.
Thanks for telling us.