Registering the name GrowSense and establishing governance

[John CC]

My plan is to register GrowSense as a business name in Australia, and the domain name growsense.ai

The hydroponics store/business called "GrowSense Hydroponics" has dissolved. Tibi shared a link not long ago confirming this.

I don't think there are any legal issues with us using the name now. The only issue is if you google GrowSense there are remnants of information left online about that store.

Does anyone think this is an issue?

Slowly those remnants should become rated lower and lower on search engines and we should easily be able to outrank those results by launching a new business/website.

I'm thinking the official name will be "GrowSense IoT" trading as "GrowSense".

The domain name will be growsense.ai but the title of the website and all official titles on documents I'm thinking should be "GrowSense IoT".

Part of the reason for adding the IoT section is because it makes it clear what the business does in the name. It also differentiates us from the "GrowSense Hydroponics" store in case anyone gets confused when doing a google search with the remnants of info that still exist.

Initially it will just be registered as a business in Australia. Then we will seek advice on whether it needs to be registered in other countries as well, so people in other countries can take on official roles in the business and potentially trade under that name (eg. selling kits, installing systems, etc.)

The GrowSense IoT business will be an independent legal entity which is in partnership with Sensorica/CAKE. We will need to establish the necessary agreements as we go.

Any revenue generated by GrowSense in the early days will be put back into the business to encourage it to grow. To fund things like internet, electricity, hosting, stocking up the inventory, infrastructure, deploying demo systems, etc.

Once the revenue reaches a certain level (this level will need to be discussed and decided) then profits can start being paid to all contributors based on their share.

My plan is to establish a "board" of core members/decision makers to make decisions following or inspired by the sociocracy model.

The basic idea is that all significant decisions are made by getting consensus from the entire board. This differs from the democracy model in that ideally decisions aren't made by a majority vote.

If we can't get a consensus that everyone is able to live with we keep negotiating until we do.

The reason for aiming for consensus is to try and ensure that there are no "losers" in the decision making process. If anyone objects to a particular course of action then we keep discussing and/or adjustng it until no objections remain.

I do reserve the right to make executive decisions if absolutely necessary, in cases of emergencies, or where decisions need to be made immediately and there's no time to consult the board.

But I hope I don't ever need to exercise this right for any significant decisions. I don't want to be a business manager I just want to focus on building tech. Eventually I would like to have the board run the business while I run the tech side of things.

Part of the job of the board is to hold me accountable for my decisions if I ever do exercise this role.

I'll do my best to ensure all significant decisions go through the board. And to ensure that if a decision doesn't go through the board that it's made in the best interest of GrowSense and everyone involved.

When it comes to the tech side of things it's unrealistic for me to run every minor decision by the board. So I will be making executive decisions regarding minor technical matters. But again the board will supervise and review these decisions and hold me accountable.

Significant technical decisions I do plan on running by the board.

We may need to establish multiple boards for different areas. So we may need a "tech" board populated by techies, who understand the tech, which is separate (but likely overlapping) with the board which runs the business.

This approach will need to be tested and we may need to adapt the model as we go. As it gets tested the governance model will begin to be formalised.

That process of formalizing the governance model will be a good example of where the board (or boards) are involved in negotiating and agreeing on each evolution of the governance model.

If anyone has any objections to any of this or can think of a reason why any aspect of this might not be a good idea, please let me know and we will discuss it.

Cheers,

John

[Maria Frangos]

Growsense is a great name and I'm glad there are no legal issues. Looking forward to seeing how this evolves. 

--
Go to SENSORICA home
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home
Go to our Working Space
https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home/working-space
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to SENSORICA group.
To post to this group, send email to Sens...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Sensorica?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Sensorica/CAK73SL2Vrom-xbRiSY3xuPX1s1zYJ3DRjxSMf94BxtO553%3DHpg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Language is the amber in which a million subtle and precious thoughts are safely embodied and preserved - a storehouse in which is contained the incarnation of the thoughts and feelings of a nation.

Frederick W.Goudy

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 7:38 PM John CC, <compuls...@gmail.com> wrote:

My plan is to register GrowSense as a business name in Australia, and the domain name growsense.ai

The hydroponics store/business called "GrowSense Hydroponics" has dissolved. Tibi shared a link not long ago confirming this.

I don't think there are any legal issues with us using the name now. The only issue is if you google GrowSense there are remnants of information left online about that store.

Does anyone think this is an issue?

I don't think there is an issue with this. 

Sensorica is also a musition in Russia. 

I'm thinking the official name will be "GrowSense IoT" trading as "GrowSense".

The domain name will be growsense.ai but the title of the website and all official titles on documents I'm thinking should be "GrowSense IoT".

Makes sense to me

Part of the reason for adding the IoT section is because it makes it clear what the business does in the name. It also differentiates us from the "GrowSense Hydroponics" store in case anyone gets confused when doing a google search with the remnants of info that still exist.

Initially it will just be registered as a business in Australia. Then we will seek advice on whether it needs to be registered in other countries as well, so people in other countries can take on official roles in the business and potentially trade under that name (eg. selling kits, installing systems, etc.)

The GrowSense IoT business will be an independent legal entity which is in partnership with Sensorica/CAKE. We will need to establish the necessary agreements as we go.

In Sensorica papers and documentation the term Exchamge Firm is used for any commercial entity that monetizes some aspects of the Sensorica open network and comes into an agreement with the Custodian for some form of benefit sharing. 

Any revenue generated by GrowSense in the early days will be put back into the business to encourage it to grow. To fund things like internet, electricity, hosting, stocking up the inventory, infrastructure, deploying demo systems, etc.

Once the revenue reaches a certain level (this level will need to be discussed and decided) then profits can start being paid to all contributors based on their share.

This is the delicate work. If the arrangements generates a sense of fairness and strengthens the community it will he a success. The opposit will lead to another failure, those involved in Growsense will dissipate and the Sensorica open network will live to the next attempt, in the near future, till we get it right one day :)  

What will we do now, building on the experiences of the past, to make it work? 

This should be approached with caution, and only project a model when the underlying principles have been considered by all those involved. 

Having said that, I hear that you John propose to make sure that this new commercial entity acquire strength before it can reward back contributors. I find this principle sound, because we spoke the other day about this and know better how you think. But not everyone might understand the same thing. What do you mean by contributor? Are you a contributor as well? Is there a contribution threshold to he considered a contributor? Etc. 

This is game theory... We are creating rules that will dictate how benefits will be distributed among contributors. If people find that fair, this bussiness becomes successful, it will attract many smart people to it, the bussiness will grow in size and in potential. All the economic potential behind any company in the world lies in the people associated with it, who compose it. So how can we lay down the seed of a growing organisation, of a new kind, one that relies on an open network for innovation. The movie Print the Legend (see on Netflix) is a great story of how things can go wrong. Sensorica has it's own stories too. 

My plan is to establish a "board" of core members/decision makers to make decisions following or inspired by the sociocracy model.

The basic idea is that all significant decisions are made by getting consensus from the entire board. This differs from the democracy model in that ideally decisions aren't made by a majority vote.

If we can't get a consensus that everyone is able to live with we keep negotiating until we do.

The reason for aiming for consensus is to try and ensure that there are no "losers" in the decision making process. If anyone objects to a particular course of action then we keep discussing and/or adjustng it until no objections remain.

I do reserve the right to make executive decisions if absolutely necessary, in cases of emergencies, or where decisions need to be made immediately and there's no time to consult the board.

But I hope I don't ever need to exercise this right for any significant decisions. I don't want to be a business manager I just want to focus on building tech. Eventually I would like to have the board run the business while I run the tech side of things.

Part of the job of the board is to hold me accountable for my decisions if I ever do exercise this role.

I'll do my best to ensure all significant decisions go through the board. And to ensure that if a decision doesn't go through the board that it's made in the best interest of GrowSense and everyone involved.

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, John proposes here a concensus-based, sociocracy-inspired governance model for GrowSense, the bussiness unit that interfaces with the market (and perhaps also integrates manufacturing and services since we still don't have experience with peer production of material goods). 

This governance model does not apply to the Sensorica network as a whole, which has evolves a more meritocratic governance model.  

Both can coexist, since there is a separation between the Open Network (Sensorica) and any Exchange Firm (GrowSense in this case) in an OVN model. Examples elsewhere: Linux and Red Heat, although the nature of this relation is specific, and might be very different from what we will set up. 

When it comes to the tech side of things it's unrealistic for me to run every minor decision by the board. So I will be making executive decisions regarding minor technical matters. But again the board will supervise and review these decisions and hold me accountable.

Significant technical decisions I do plan on running by the board.

I suggest to revise or reformulate this thinking. What if we start to sell some kits, nd attract the attention of a few other hackers that will come in the Sensorica environment (the open network) and start contributing to the project, building in top of your work. Within Sensorica, like in any open source project out there, you cannot stop these people to do what they want, force them in any way to develop in the direction that you see fit. They are free to fork your work and perhaps create a new version of a product. The same thing applies to you John as a developer. You're free to do whatever you want in terms of development. 

The difference comes when you have an agreement with other people to approach the market in a specific way. People invest their energy to develop the market opportunity, based on the perceived value of a specific product that everyone is aligned with. If someone comes and tries to change that product into something else by tweaking the technology to give the product other properties, that move needs to satisfy everyone invested in the project, because that move can geperdize everyone's investment. There are very well documented traditional governance solutions to this problem. The best ones in my opinion are those that balance technical input with market signals. An engineer lead attempt to "improve" a product might lead to disaster, because the motivation of the engineer is not always aligned with the market demand. There are a number of other considerations that go into the designing of a product: its manufacturability, transportability, ease of assembly and repair/upgrade, or servicebility, recyclability, safety and security, user/client needs and desires, bussiness model or existing competition, etc. etc. Making a successful product requires input from people with various skills. But the most important thing I want to say here is that this stuff is in the end a bussiness decision, it happens within the Exchange Firm, not Sensorica. 

In Sensorica people contribute to projects. If the Exchange Firm, which has market information, puts out a request to the open network to start exploring some tech, some solutions to a problem, perhaps tweaking the product for version 2 or 3, people in the open network, innovators, can decide to collaborate or not, depending on the incentives put forward by the Exchange Firm. But these innovators can elect not to contribute, or to contribute but not in the direction that the Exchamge Firm has proposed. They still log their contributions, but no financial benefit will be returning from having contributed to a branch with no market exchange. 

If we're talking about a classical company that does everything, including innovation, innovation or development is entirely submitted to the governance of this organisation. 

If we are talking about a model like Arduino, the open community of innovators and early adapters are not submitted to the governance of the Arduino company. 

If we are talking about a  Exchamge Firm of the Sensorica network, innovation should be the domain of the network with propositions incentivised by the Exchange Firm. 

 

There is no point of creating a company that does everything, including inhouse innovation, because that defeats the whole purpose of the OVN model, we're back to a traditional model, not even to a hybrid model like Arduino or Adafruit. 

We may need to establish multiple boards for different areas. So we may need a "tech" board populated by techies, who understand the tech, which is separate (but likely overlapping) with the board which runs the business.

This approach will need to be tested and we may need to adapt the model as we go. As it gets tested the governance model will begin to be formalised.

Yes. We can also start by buildings a list of successful models out there and remix, instead of reinventing the entire wheel. I can build a chart of that! That's the stuff I like to do :) 

That process of formalizing the governance model will be a good example of where the board (or boards) are involved in negotiating and agreeing on each evolution of the governance model.

If anyone has any objections to any of this or can think of a reason why any aspect of this might not be a good idea, please let me know and we will discuss it.

Cheers,

John

Thanks John for opening this. 

I's a process and we don't have to over engineer this. 

I see my role in this process to inform about what went wrong in the past, what others do, and to make sure that the Sensorica project and dream is kept alive no matter the outcome of GrowSense. 

I didn't like to formaly associate with the Exchange Firm or the bussiness side of things in Sensorica in the past, because I wanted to be focused on Sensorica, the open network. But I have in the past and will contribute to this new effort for commercialization. 

Sensorica is like this pot of earth. We have tried different types of seeds in it. Some have grown well bus small. Others have showed a lot of potential but have failed. But the pot is always there for the next person to try something else. I see myself as the keeper of that pot :) 

[John CC]

Any revenue generated by GrowSense in the early days will be put back into the business to encourage it to grow. To fund things like internet, electricity, hosting, stocking up the inventory, infrastructure, deploying demo systems, etc.

Once the revenue reaches a certain level (this level will need to be discussed and decided) then profits can start being paid to all contributors based on their share.

This is the delicate work. If the arrangements generates a sense of fairness and strengthens the community it will he a success. The opposit will lead to another failure, those involved in Growsense will dissipate and the Sensorica open network will live to the next attempt, in the near future, till we get it right one day :)  

What will we do now, building on the experiences of the past, to make it work? 

This should be approached with caution, and only project a model when the underlying principles have been considered by all those involved. 

Agreed. There will need to be an ongoing discussion as to how all of this comes together, at what point dividend get paid out, etc. As well as ongoing discussion about how to learn from past experiences and avoid repeating mistakes.

Even the concepts I proposed in this thread are essentially just ideas at this point. They aren't yet concrete. 

It seems like we need to start a list of questions related to things like governance. Things like at what point does GrowSense start to pay out dividends?

Then we discuss the potential answers as formulate the model around those questions and answers as we go.

Having said that, I hear that you John propose to make sure that this new commercial entity acquire strength before it can reward back contributors. I find this principle sound, because we spoke the other day about this and know better how you think. But not everyone might understand the same thing. What do you mean by contributor? Are you a contributor as well? Is there a contribution threshold to he considered a contributor? Etc. 

Anyone who has contributed something of value to the project, such as those logged in the VAS I consider a contributor.

I do consider myself a contributor, as well as currently being the executive decision maker when necessary.

I don't think there needs to be a threshold in terms of being considered a contributor. It's simply a matter of whether a contribution is seen as having value to the business. If so, you're a contributor, even if the contribution is relatively small.

The Arduino company could be seen as a contributor potentially as we are using their IP. However rewarding them is likely a matter of a licensing agreement rather than giving dividends.

There are also some docker containers and code files for example where I've added a "credit" line at the top linking to the original source, the person who created the docker container I adapted. I think even these people can be considered contributors despite not being logged in the VAS and we should look at finding ways to reward them if possible. Not just for fairness but also because if these people receive a dividend, even a small one, it is likely to encourage them to join the team and contribute more.

As the founder and executive decision maker I'm thinking of following the approach similar to Zuckerberg where I don't get paid a wage, or if I do it's a token amount of $1 per year, and to receive funds from the company I receive them as dividends as a contributor.

This means for me to receive funds from the business I have to pay out to all contributors/shareholders and therefore IMO it makes it more fair, and increases trust and accountability.

This is game theory... We are creating rules that will dictate how benefits will be distributed among contributors. If people find that fair, this bussiness becomes successful, it will attract many smart people to it, the bussiness will grow in size and in potential. All the economic potential behind any company in the world lies in the people associated with it, who compose it. So how can we lay down the seed of a growing organisation, of a new kind, one that relies on an open network for innovation. The movie Print the Legend (see on Netflix) is a great story of how things can go wrong. Sensorica has it's own stories too. 

Agreed. In an open source business like this one of the most critical aspects is fairness and trust.

That's one key reason for thinking about me only receiving dividends, not a wage.

I'm definitely open to constructive criticisms and objections in terms of how things operate. That's what I see as one of the keys behind adopting the sociocratic model, or at least creating a model inspired by it.

Hopefully we can develop a model which everyone sees as fair. I do think it's possible but it will be an ongoing debate and ongoing evolution to achieve it.

If I recall correctly "Print the Legend" outlined the disaster that was makerbot. In a way a success in terms of making money but a failure in terms of retaining fairness, trust and reputation. I would prefer to make less money but retain fairness and trust, and stay open source. More money can be made by launching more products, not by sacrificing fairness and trust.

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, John proposes here a concensus-based, sociocracy-inspired governance model for GrowSense, the bussiness unit that interfaces with the market (and perhaps also integrates manufacturing and services since we still don't have experience with peer production of material goods). 

This governance model does not apply to the Sensorica network as a whole, which has evolves a more meritocratic governance model.  

Both can coexist, since there is a separation between the Open Network (Sensorica) and any Exchange Firm (GrowSense in this case) in an OVN model. Examples elsewhere: Linux and Red Heat, although the nature of this relation is specific, and might be very different from what we will set up. 

Exactly. Sensorica is an open innovation community. GrowSense is a business built on top of open source software/hardware.

Each can have different governance models because essentially they each have different, but completely compatible objectives.

While I proposed sociocracy a template for governing GreenSense, I do believe we will need to develop our own model which is inspired by it. Some aspects may be completely sociocratic. Some aspects may evolve to be something else. The exact model will emerge through discussion, debate, research, and trial and error.

So I'm not rigidly fixed on the sociocratic model. But it does seem like a good starting point, and provides a good basis to build upon.

When it comes to the tech side of things it's unrealistic for me to run every minor decision by the board. So I will be making executive decisions regarding minor technical matters. But again the board will supervise and review these decisions and hold me accountable.

Significant technical decisions I do plan on running by the board.

I suggest to revise or reformulate this thinking. What if we start to sell some kits, nd attract the attention of a few other hackers that will come in the Sensorica environment (the open network) and start contributing to the project, building in top of your work. Within Sensorica, like in any open source project out there, you cannot stop these people to do what they want, force them in any way to develop in the direction that you see fit. They are free to fork your work and perhaps create a new version of a product. The same thing applies to you John as a developer. You're free to do whatever you want in terms of development. 

The rules related to the core GrowSense distribution are not the same as uses outside of the core distribution.

When I use the term "distribution" here think "linux distribution" or "linux distro".

Anyone can fork the project to create their own distro and then there are no rules (except licensing for commercial use). They can create their own rules surrounding their distro.

But when it comes to contributing to the core distribution there will be rules and they will be somewhat strict. They have to be. They revolve around keeping the core distro stable.

One of the most important examples is that no new device or functionality can be included into the core distro unless it has comprehensive automated testing. The reason for this rule should be self explanatory.

If someone wants to use a custom device in their own installation or their own distro that's a totally different matter. It's outside the core distro so the rules don't apply. There are no restrictions outside the core distro.

If someone creates a new device or new functionality they are not only free to use it in their own system or their own distro. They are also free to propose that it be included in the core distro. But it won't actually be included unless it's compatible with the rules outlined for including external contributions.

This process means not only do outside contributions need automated testing they also need to go through a manual review and vetting process by me and multiple other members of the technical team.

The same thing happens with linux distros (distributions). Debian for example is renowned for it's stability and reliability. As far as I understand it, this is achieved by being fairly strict about what gets included into the debian distribution. Not just anyone can make a change and have it included, because that comes with risk of breaking something.

However anyone is free to fork debian and reuse it. No-one can stop them, nor should they want to. Other debian based distros such as raspbian, armbian, I believe even ubuntu was originally based on debian, have all emerged.

Each of these distros have their own governance which is technically independent of the others, but they are all able to learn from each other and share code, updates, fixes, etc.

Ubuntu is known to have more features but be less stable than debian. This is because the governance and quality control is less strict and updates, changes, and features are added more rapidly. So if you want a stable server go with debian, if you want all the fancy features and don't mind running into a few glitches then go with ubuntu.

When it comes to GrowSense, I want to follow the debian approach. These GrowSense devices are set and forget (in theory). We can't allow changes or new devices to be rolled out which might wipe out entire crops because a bug stopped them being irrigated.

Within the core GrowSense distro the rules need to be discussed, negotiated, and defined by a technical board. So it won't just be me making the rules in the long run. But initially I will be until we have a technical team established.

The technical team needs to have a good understanding of how the system works and what the risks are in order to fully appreciate why and how each rule is implemented. While I'm open to ideas and suggestions from anyone, more weight will be given to those who truly understand the system.

We also need a good team of testers to apply these rules with regard to any proposed additions. To thoroughly check that nothing broke, and that every new change/addition is completely reliable.

Obviously this is all still up for discussion. But having somewhat strict quality control for what makes it to the LTS (long term support or stable) branch I consider essential.

Cheers,

John

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

Cool, we'll need to start working on formalizing this...

John: "If I recall correctly "Print the Legend" outlined the disaster that was makerbot. In a way a success in terms of making money but a failure in terms of retaining fairness, trust and reputation. I would prefer to make less money but retain fairness and trust, and stay open source. More money can be made by launching more products, not by sacrificing fairness and trust"

Not really a financial success for Makerbot. I would say it was a financial failure. Stratasys, the 3D giant that bought Makerbot pushed the product to the market and sold a few boxes using their market penetration and economic power. But I consider their achievements mediocre, taking into consideration the initial hype for Makerbot. I think Strtasys killed Makerbot's momentum, killed the financial potential that was there in the beginning. They actually admitted it, they tried to reconnect with the maker movement in an apologetic way, not for ethical reasons, but because the initial move was a financial flop.

In other words, making a move like that is not ethical and in a very dynamic market like 3D printing, consumers electronics, IoT, etc, there's a pretty good chance it will not be good for  bussiness as well. 

At least one reason is obvious for me. Everything goes through communities today, from innovation to marketing and sales. Moves that destroys communities destroy bussiness. 

We're in the bussiness 2.0 era. 

[John CC]

Not really a financial success for Makerbot. I would say it was a financial failure. Stratasys, the 3D giant that bought Makerbot pushed the product to the market and sold a few boxes using their market penetration and economic power. But I consider their achievements mediocre, taking into consideration the initial hype for Makerbot. I think Strtasys killed Makerbot's momentum, killed the financial potential that was there in the beginning. They actually admitted it, they tried to reconnect with the maker movement in an apologetic way, not for ethical reasons, but because the initial move was a financial flop.

Ah that's interesting. I wasn't really up to date on the whole thing.

In other words, making a move like that is not ethical and in a very dynamic market like 3D printing, consumers electronics, IoT, etc, there's a pretty good chance it will not be good for  bussiness as well. 

Agreed. GrowSense will always remain open source and I'll do my best to ensure it keeps the open source values. We can still build a business on top of it.

At least one reason is obvious for me. Everything goes through communities today, from innovation to marketing and sales. Moves that destroys communities destroy bussiness. 

I agree. The key is to promote the community around a product. Like the community around RPi and Arduino because they are what make it a success.

I won't be doing anything to negatively impact the community, and having a board oversee decisions to ensure no decision is made which does negatively impact the community seems like a good idea.

Cheers,

John