Update

[Barry Roeder]

Hi Bridgers,

 

So I finally met with the CC folks on Friday afternoon, although Jake cancelled 10 minutes prior.  Jon, Robert and I had a good conversation, but they feel I need to speak with Jake as well; I hope that will happen this week.

 

Before I give you the breakdown, let me tell you about a fortuitous meeting I had on Wednesday with Jen Pahlka, the Founder and CEO of Code for America.  My intention was general introduction, having met her a month ago at the Code for Oakland event.  Along the way she mentioned she had agreed to use the three 2013 CfA San Francisco fellows to, among other things, help her personal friend Trent Rhorer (the head of HSA!) redo the shelter reservation system!  It ended with her telling me that if I could set Bridge up as a sustainable, on-going entity, she’d give me the fellows to do the work with us.  Big stuff, which I shared with Jon and Robert.

 

As for the upshot of that conversation:

·         I made clear that in order to be a sustainable effort, we need more resources.  I also said we felt that we need better structure, which I know will be required to attract the resources.

·         They agreed that we need better structure, and shared that they’ve been concerned about that for us for some time now, and feel that in order to attract investment, we have to address the following needs.  Specifically, we need people that fit the following capacities, with experience/resumes to back it up (serious stuff).  Those areas are:

o   Executive Director (one leader)

o   Tech (whatever our core technology becomes)

o   Finance (financial management, budgeting, fundraising)

o   Marketing/Design (including product design)

o   Stakeholder/Customer Relations (including research)

·         In addition to the above, I felt we needed a board of directors, and that the three of them are our de facto board at the moment.  They agreed, and suggested some people we might add.  They also agree with me that we need help with digesting and communicating the ecosystem complexity, but that such help may not be big enough to warrant a core person like the above.

·         People from the current team were tentatively identified as follows:

o   Some to head above-noted functions

o   Some as TBD/floating assistants, helping as needed but without a clear role as yet

o   One as a good board candidate

o   And finally some as voluntarily leaving the team, per their original intentions to only stay through the end of the CC cycle

Until Jake gives his thoughts, and I get a chance to have a couple personal conversations, it’s best to not talk names.

·         Having discussed the above, we all agree that there’s a distinction between the following, the importance of which is to recognize the contributions and roles/responsibilities of both:

o   Original team member (throughout the current process)

o   The right people/roles to move this forward

 

Lastly, but certainly most pressingly, I shared that my aim for SOCAP was to rehash the findings to date, but in the context of a business structure (for profit, non-profit, other, etc.) and a staffing plan (per the above).

 

I’m happy to have conversation with each of you about this, but think at this time that having the personal conversations are best before re-convening as a group.  I’m open, however, to your thoughts on this.  If you wish to call me before I get to you, please feel free.

 

Best regards,

 

Barry