crazy thoughts at the mall
Massimo Di Pierro
Went to the mall, got very bored and started having these crazy thought....
I have been thinking about this group. We have all been brought here together by a specific technology that we are all starting to trust. But what really fascinates me and, I did anticipated, is that now we are an organization of 205 members, highly qualified and motivated people, from every part of the globe who have something in common and trust each other. Our work is already beyond that of sharing web2py knowledge. Now some of you are working on marketing. But there is more: if I needed to know, for example, how to open a bank account in China, I am sure somebody here would explain it to me within 24hrs. If I needed to find somebody to complete a web2py project for a client and I could pay for it, here I would find people willing to help me.
If we were a corporation we’d be the hell of a corporation!
So I thought that perhaps we can try create something revolutionary. People have invented Open Source Software, why don’t we invent the Open Source Corporation? I do not know yet what it is and how to make it work but I think together we can figure it out.
Please bare with me for a little longer.
Like a corporation we have a product, web2py, but do not sell the product because it is free. We sell our knowledge of the product, hence the Members of the Open Corporation are Consultants.
The goal of any corporation is to maximize the wealth of the shareholders. If we were to be some form of cooperative the Members would be both the workers and the shareholders therefore everybody would contribute in proportion to their consulting income and receive in proportion to their income. Bottom line: you make something with web2py, you sell it, you keep all the money. That’s it. Could not be simpler. If you were to give money to the Corporation, the Corporation would have to pay taxes on it, then give you back the leftover percentage and you would end up paying taxes twice. Why bother collection money at all?
So what’s the point? In some sense and Open Corporation could be something like a Club of Consultants. There would be benefits and duties for the members:
Members, when they bid for a contract, can claim to be part of a bigger organization and thus be more competitive (“how will support this product if you die?”)
The Corporation would also collect information about previous contracts thus proving some legal help in drafting new contracts.
Some Members may be better at finding clients and others may be better at developing solutions. The Corporation would help mediating and matching them, even across countries.
Members, would be listed on the Corporation web page including their profile and skills. Potential clients of the Memebers/consultants would be able to verify the information.
Members would be required to follow a code of conduct and share all (or some) of their code, information, and copy the contracts (taken as a members of the corporation) with the corporation.
There would be a centralized database of members, contracts, clients, job opportunities, ideas, code, tips, surveys, only accessible to members.
Anybody can ask to be a members and there will have to a committee that verifies the credentials of the applicants and decides on admissions.
If a member breaks the code of conduct he/she is out. They could also get out at any time as long they do not break agreements with other members.
The Corporation would have a centralized body for the only purpose of running a database with the core information, and taking care of global advertising.
National subcommittees would be in charge of local advertising campaigns and would collect funds among members for that purpose.
Members could be freelance consultants, people already employed by a different organization (if they do not complain, we do not complain), or entire companies. We would want to be associate with some professional organization. We could be sponsored by vendors of complementary solutions (hardware vendors, web hosting services, etc.)
While I think there are benefits of building such a thing there many issues I have not figured out yet. For example the organization will need some money to carry one its daily operation. It could collect small duties among members and/or ask corporate members to pay a fee. There need to be a reward mechanism to motivate people to share more code and more info with the rest of Corporation and void the “free rider problem”. One way would be to give titles to members (CEO, CTO, Manager, Regional Manager, etc), build a hierarchy initially based on seniority and using online voting to decide on promotions. Even if a title does not mean a salary (nobody would get a salary from the corporation) it does mean public recognition and thus potentially more/better contracts.
The most complex issue here is legal.
I am not suggesting we change this mailing list into something else. I am just thinking we can brainstorm this idea and if there is a next step, people from this list and people not on this mailing list, will be free to ask to join the new entity.
Am I gone crazy?
Massimo
yarko
You have not gone crazy.
But there is much yet to add to this, to think of...
Membership is important because of this:
You talked about data _for the corporation_ --- which is an incomplete
ecology.
The benefit of some technologies (web2py, or whatever) is secondary
and transient.
The true benefit is in not (just) the contacts and data about
resources within such a corporation - it is in the systems / processes
in place - the "engine" - that can be shown to serve clients. It is
preciesly access to this that is valuable - methods for certifying
"here's my process, and I put all of your solution development testing
and delivery in a data driven system; If I die on my motorcycle
tomorrow, anyone from my corporation can pick up and keep your work
going in the process."
This is beyond data driven web sites;
It is beyond data driven (internal) business needs;
It is beyond providing data-driven solutions to end customers;
It is interesting when you think about data driven PROCESSES for
delivering a class of solutions.
This - in my mind - is where the "open source" corporation stuff comes
to play.
A system - NOT open source, but proprietary to the corporation - but
built in an open source method / model. You build it, you use it.
(Not unlike Django's parent News System framework is being attempted
to be sold to other news organizations. But the difference I think
is to NOT sell THAT --- they deliver new in a timely manner, and
that's realy done and continues to do a lot of good.... - but to KEEP
that as the machine to drive... so for example, I suppose I'd suggest
the Django boys would have formed their own news sevice agency, an
interenetted AP.
But that's a different business. I think you're talking about
engineering solutions, and so an engineering consulting firm
specializing in some group of solutions, that is global, would need to
define well what it is they do, and why / how they excell in it ---
the obvious answer being thru data driven, (more) deterministic (than
most) processes... and the people dedicated to making that process
"engine" run, and run well - that is the asset.
Now, consulting has the efficiencies of a small operation with the
benefits of a large backing.
There would be many social challenges (as most business - even
engineering - is non-technical).
Remember that paper I suggested you read?
Keep walking in malls!
Regards,
Yarko
Massimo Di Pierro
Zoom.Quiet
<mdip...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
> I agree completely.
>
keep u roading,
let them roaring..
--
'''过程改进乃是开始催生可促生靠谱的人的组织!
PI keeps evolving organizations which promoting people be good!
'''http://zoomquiet.org
Pls. usage OOo to replace M$ Office. http://zh.openoffice.org
Pls. usage 7-zip to replace WinRAR/WinZip. http://7-zip.org
You can get the truely Freedom 4 software.
Chris Leonello
would be something between a traditional consulting company selling
services for a technology(e.g. web2py) and a service or agency which
connects clients with developers. Something between but also
something more.
If I understand what yarko was saying (this is what I think at any
rate), a good corporation is not dependent on a specific product or
technology. What makes a good corporation is the people and processes
in place to identify products/service which fulfill customer's needs
(i.e. product/market research and development), bring those to market
(i.e. development and execution) and foster client relationships (e.g.
business pursuit and support on both the front and back ends of the
process).
So, connecting the dots, this "corporation" would be more about
providing a process/structure for mostly independent developers to
execute solutions for clients. The added benefit to clients would be
the backing and support of a corporation behind the individual
developer. Although it would be tied to a specific technology
(web2py).
I see a lot of potential and upside here. Some of the issues which
need addressed, though:
What would be the business model for the corporation? Being an
Engineer, I hate terms like "business model", but, if the purpose is
to provide revenue for the "members", there needs to something in
place to try and make that happen. It has to be more than an co-op of
developers.
The issues independent developers face trying to supply support to
clients can't be overlooked. This corporation could solve that
problem. There needs to be a mechanism in place for this. Someone
else in the corporation needs to be familiar with the other member's
product. How would this work?
There could be issues with non-disclosure agreements. Not necessarily
legally, the corporation can provide the legal mechanisms to handle
these. Clients may not feel comfortable with their proprietary data
being available to members of such a loosely organized company,
however. That is, how to "sell" the new "open source" corporation
idea to customers so they like it better than the other guy.
I am very interested in this idea. I'd like to be involved to help
develop this idea however I can. Truthfully, I have a bunch of ideas
on corporate structure, delegation, authority, revenue sharing, etc.
It's difficult to brainstorm in this format, though.
On May 4, 12:13 am, Zoom.Quiet <zoom.qu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree completely.
>
> keep u roading,
> let them roaring..
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 2008, at 7:13 PM, yarko wrote:
>
> > I think you're talking about
>
> > engineering solutions, and so an engineering consulting firm
>
> > specializing in some group of solutions, that is global, would need to
>
> > define well what it is they do, and why / how they excell in it ---
>
> > the obvious answer being thru data driven, (more) deterministic (than
>
> > most) processes... and the people dedicated to making that process
>
> > "engine" run, and run well - that is the asset.
>
> > Now, consulting has the efficiencies of a small operation with the
>
> > benefits of a large backing.
>
> > There would be many social challenges (as most business - even
>
> > engineering - is non-technical).
>
> --
> '''过程改进乃是开始催生可促生靠谱的人的组织!
> PI keeps evolving organizations which promoting people be good!
> '''http://zoomquiet.org
> Pls. usage 7-zip to replace WinRAR/WinZip.http://7-zip.org
Massimo Di Pierro
On May 4, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Chris Leonello wrote:
>
> This is a fascinating idea. If I understand what your suggesting, this
> would be something between a traditional consulting company selling
> services for a technology(e.g. web2py) and a service or agency which
> connects clients with developers. Something between but also
> something more.
>
> If I understand what yarko was saying (this is what I think at any
> rate), a good corporation is not dependent on a specific product or
> technology. What makes a good corporation is the people and processes
> in place to identify products/service which fulfill customer's needs
> (i.e. product/market research and development), bring those to market
> (i.e. development and execution) and foster client relationships (e.g.
> business pursuit and support on both the front and back ends of the
> process).
I agree with you.
> So, connecting the dots, this "corporation" would be more about
> providing a process/structure for mostly independent developers to
> execute solutions for clients. The added benefit to clients would be
> the backing and support of a corporation behind the individual
> developer. Although it would be tied to a specific technology
> (web2py).
Only because this is what unites us and, to start, this is what can
give us an edge. It should not be limited to web2py but we should
have a set of open source core tenchology that members are familiar
with and are willing to support. We could include postgresql, apache,
openoffice.
> I see a lot of potential and upside here. Some of the issues which
> need addressed, though:
>
> What would be the business model for the corporation? Being an
> Engineer, I hate terms like "business model", but, if the purpose is
> to provide revenue for the "members", there needs to something in
> place to try and make that happen. It has to be more than an co-op of
> developers.
I agree this needs more thought but I am not sure we need a proper
business model here. The corporation in itself does not need to
generate revenues. Only the members need to do it and they are free
to do it as they please, since they keep the money the make. I think
of it more as a club that helps the members find jobs, share
information and helps the clients find qualified people. If the
corporation, for example, were allowed to receive any form of
funding, the investors would expect return on investment, this would
mean that some of the wealth produced by the members would have to be
used to pay back those investors. While this is common in many
industries, this model is not at all necessary in our line of
business since we do not need expensive equipment to do our job, thus
we do not need investors. We already have what we need: qualified
people! The only common expense is advertisement. We would have to
collect money from members for regional/local advertisement. There
are cheap ways to do advertisement anyway.
> The issues independent developers face trying to supply support to
> clients can't be overlooked. This corporation could solve that
> problem. There needs to be a mechanism in place for this. Someone
> else in the corporation needs to be familiar with the other member's
> product. How would this work?
That is why it cannot be completely open ended. We need to settle on
a set of core technologies and make list.
> There could be issues with non-disclosure agreements. Not necessarily
> legally, the corporation can provide the legal mechanisms to handle
> these. Clients may not feel comfortable with their proprietary data
> being available to members of such a loosely organized company,
> however. That is, how to "sell" the new "open source" corporation
> idea to customers so they like it better than the other guy.
This is not a problem as long as any non-disclosure agreement is
between the "corporation" and "the client". If the client prefers an
agreement between "the consultant" and the "client" then the
corporation would not collect information. This needs to be worked out.
> I am very interested in this idea. I'd like to be involved to help
> develop this idea however I can. Truthfully, I have a bunch of ideas
> on corporate structure, delegation, authority, revenue sharing, etc.
> It's difficult to brainstorm in this format, though.
Let's see how many people are interested and eventually we will move
this discussion on another thread and open a wiki to start sharing idea.
If anything else comes up to your mind, please let us know.
Massimo
yarko
Chris, Massimo - there is one other important ingredient - which most
(all?) technical companies miss...
I will speak to this with more deliberation, care later today /
tomorrow - but its not just processes which are value; there's one
more thing which has to do both with processes, and something Massimo
alluded to first - the business needs to allocate who is a member...
Think quickly of a farmers, open air market. You are the vendor w/
cart (corporation);
I am the customer (visiting the market).
I look for food, to feed may family.
You - along with many other carts in the market - have food.
What unites us?
I want fresh fruit for my young children and older parents too -
vitamins, and regularity.
Those are my specific shopping needs in the market.
If you are the fish vendor, and I come to you (say I'm blind! ---
please, no jokes / analogies ;-) --- you MUST know WHAT KINDS OF
THINGS you have to provide. If you say "no protein, have enough -
need vitamins, a little sweetness, fiber for regularity... and I'd
like fresh (as opposed to raisins of figs lets say) then I must be
willing and able to direct you to the fruit vendor at the next cart.
In farmers markets a shopper can expect that, and that's the draw. In
other businesses, it's too much about "me" the business trying to
figure out how to get money from you (instead of how I can serve
you)....
This is the second piece (in addition to the processes I have to offer
you) - knowledge about WHAT KINDS OF THINGS I CAN (or am willing) to
provide.
The first part (processes of HOW I provide them to you) would answer
your questions, such as "Is your fish fresh? When did you catch it?
has it always been iced? Are they already gutted and cleaned?" ....
and so on....
If you want fruit - how did I grow it? Was it organically grown?
Where was it grown (e.g. next to a polluting factory or river)? Did
I use pesticides? Was the fruit picked ripe? .... and so on....
SO the ecology to me looks this:
1 - What do you need? (marketing - also, nature of the problem; in
the longer term, what kinds of problems do I address?)
2 - What KIND OF THINGS I can do? (Business abstraction / definition
- also nature of the solutions)
3 - How will I do these thing for you? (processes / design and
otherwise)
4 - Who (and when) will I do them? That is, what resources do I have
to do this? (web2py, java, c++ --- it really doesn't matter, just
that I know how to manage whatever I do);
This is what I meant by the assets of an "open" corporation.
We've kind of touched on 3 and 4. I think 2 is important (1 comes
over time; 1 & 2 continually develop, migrate, change shape; 3 & 4
are more transient - I expect web2py will be passe in 5 or 10 years).
For example - I need a web site for clients.
Fine - we can do that, have the people, skills, and processes.
But wait - The clients are patients, and the website must be secure
and robust, and also needs FDA approval for the use intended.
NOW - if we have one person who's done FDA approval for software - not
enough; we can't claim to do that (the PERSON can...).
However, if we have a dozen people experienced in that, the processes
are in place in our system, and there is some structure among those
people, we can add that to our abstraction of "THE KINDS OF THINGS WE
ARE SET TO DO IN THIS BUSINESS"
So to transition from the first to the second: "I want to do business
that includes FDA approval" we need to say - "Fine, here's what's
required for this to claim to do that - processes, skilled people,
structure, experience....." etc. Getting that into place can be an
"open source" effort by a band of people. Why would I want to do this
with my colleagues? Because I'll be part of a structure that also has
people with other skills (say, security, database design, whatever)
that I can call on as part of a contract bid, AND have the processes
be part of one united structure (that is - play together better than
is two or three consulting companies just united to try to do this,
only to find where their various processes didn't quite match ...).
The other benefit to "my band of FDA consultants" is that being
required to consider what we do helps us focus on our skills (or
limits to) better, focuses our business pursuits. I'm getting into
objectives of why to do this now, and could go on about costs, time
benefits, customer goals, efficiencies, etc. etc....
Make sense?
Fun thinking about this!
Yarko
yarko
revenue... it may not have a goal of generating profit. Actually, an
interesting thing might be a non-profit corporation, which does as
part of it's profit work donation of engineering services and skills
where they would otherwise not be afforded.... in disaster areas; in
developing...
wow - ok... how does the saying go? You can have (do?) anything you
want; you just can't have _everything_ you want!
A not for profit corporation intent on setting up resources to
developing areas, to provide services and efficiencies where they
might not otherwise be available...
while providing livelyhood to members.... a cooperative with a
mission...
;-)
yarko
If you're interested, then I suggest reading and digesting for a bit
this:
(referred to here: http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/TechRep/1991/TechnicalReports91.html)
......
14. A. Baskin, R. Reinke, J. Mittenthal, Exploring the Role of
Finiteness in the Emergence of Structure, Technical Report CCSR-91-14
Abstract: The fact that complex adaptive systems have existed in
the biological world for millennia suggests that there are forces
which foster or reinforce such systems. The development of a normative
theory of organization for these complex adaptive systems may make it
easier to understand biological systems and will, certainly, assist in
the design of man-made systems. This paper explores the role of
finiteness in the emergence of structure by relating biological
structures to a formal mathematical model, investigating structural
properties of the model, and relating those properties back to their
biological equivalents. Based on the emerging theory, we conclude that
a clash between requirements (for reliability, accuracy, and speed)
and finiteness limits (on control states and building blocks) provides
both an impetus for and a pressure to sustain higher levels of
structure.
.....
Among other things, you should consider what structure such an "Open"
corporation would need to provide members, and what those members
finiteness challenges are. The organizing structure of bringing
together skilled people in a uniform way to serve society (clients) is
the most basic of ecologies.
I have lots more to say around this... and what it implies about
development processes, and how those could be implemented...
The paper proper is here:
http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/TechRep/1991/CCSR-91-14.pdf
Yarko.
yarko
the 3,4 below less "prevalant", allowing time for more focus on "1, 2"
- which is so important. As complexity increases, so many engineering
efforts get consumed in the details of 3, 4. While some detail is
necessary, the question is which is the right detail, and how do I
spot the unnecessary detail (or unnecessary structure - rigidity leads
to extinction!). Having the attention / time available to ask the
question "what is the correct abstraction" is part of web2py's promise
in the web application space. Leveraging that theme (and efficiencies
it offers) is what I see as the gift of the idea Massimo had shopping
the other day ;-)
Actually, I have a little better abstraction on 1,2,3,4 for later ---
On May 4, 3:59 pm, yarko <yark...@gmail.com> wrote:
....
yarko
might suffice....
But how do you get away from the cost of data, and process systems - a
server, backups, etc....
yarko
implementing business processes, and let people take them and run...
then that is a different thing... people will make their own local
mods, and that's fine - but wouldn't have the same sorts of
benefits... (and wouldn't have the same costs either)... You could
say wikipedia, for example is just any blog on the web - why you
need wikipedia?
Well, why do so many people look on it, and why do you want web2py on
it (because so many people look on it!)?
Because they set some uniform standards in place - like unbiased
independent data, etc. etc. Their processes has resulted in being a
somewhat reliable resource ...
When considering direction here, this is a good question to ask: what
structure will be beneficial in the bigger picture?
It's clear that simplicity, local maxima effects favor less
structure.... but what is the cost / benefit of some structure? And
what is the right way to pursue the correct minimal (yet safely
redundant) structure?
That is to say - what are the problems we are seeking to address here?
yarko
firms experience?
Who would a "Corporation" serve ("workeres" and "customers"), and what
problems of each would it be poised to address?
Settling on technologies is just a small starting point to this
question.
Massimo Di Pierro
not talking about something to capitalize on web2py. I am talking
about something to capitalize on the people and their expertise. Here
are some of the problems I am trying to solve:
You are an expert in Open Source Software and you want to start your
own consulting company. You will face some problems. They will ask
you: "how can we trust you?" "What have you build so far?" "what
happens if you go out of business?".
An individual or a small consulting company may have a hard time to
answer these questions. If we put ourself under one umbrella, let's
call it the Corporation for now, it may be easier to answer those
questions. The Corporation could also help you with advertisement,
marketing and some legal questions. The corporation will help you
match your skills with those of other members of the corporation in
order to build small groups and solve bigger problems faster.
You may be already employed but perhaps want to make some money on
the side and do not want to open your own consulting company. The
Corporation could help you because it would bill you customers and
pay you as capital distribution. The fact you are already employed
would benefit everybody else too because we could claim: "our members
work for IBM, Google, AT&T".
You may be a student or a professor and do not want to spend the time
forming your own company. The Corporation could help you find other
members who want to subcontract you jobs.
The corporation would not be making money from your work. It would
act more like a club or an "international association".
If our expertise were in car manufacturing we would need investors to
build us a factory and we would need a revenue scheme to attract
investors. Our line of business is software development and we
already own our means of production (our own laptop). The Corporation
would still have expenses but we can keep it lean and it would live
on a small yearly fees. If the Corporation were to make a profit it
would have to take part of the revenues of the members. To what
purpose? Hire new people? But the Corporation would not hire anybody.
Buy office space? What for?
In the beginning most of the clients will come from the bottom
(individual members will bring in project, will complete them and
will give the Corporation a reputation) but eventually clients will
start coming from the top (contact the Corporation because of it
reputation). At this point the Corporation may decide to keep a
finder's fee before assigning the to local members/consultants.
Agree with Yarko's analogy to the concept of FDA approval. The
Corporation would certify its members. Not everybody will be able to
join. At the beginning everybody on this list will be able to join
(if they ask), then only existing members can propose new members and
there will be a committee that checks and validate resumes. I do not
think the Corporation should check/approve the work of the members
but should check the satisfaction of the Customers (surveys) to make
sure the Member behaved appropriately and did not damage the image of
the Corporation. Over time the Corporation would build a database of
business solutions that Members can use to provide better service to
the customers.
Members would would be able to use the Corporation logo and name on
business cards and stationary and access to the Corporation database
of clients.
Would this be valuable to people?
Over time the value of the Corporation would surpass the sum of the
value of its parts and we may rethink the business model.
There are many legal issues here mainly related to billing, taxes and
liabilities. This is not my area.
Massimo
yarko
.......
> would still have expenses but we can keep it lean and it would live
> on a small yearly fees. If the Corporation were to make a profit it
> would have to take part of the revenues of the members. To what
> purpose? Hire new people? But the Corporation would not hire anybody.
> Buy office space? What for?
etc...
If billing and handling Legal issues, then perhaps eventually pay
some office staff (or service) to manage the "office" that those
companies would contact "directly", manage fees, finances, etc.
.....
> (if they ask), then only existing members can propose new members and
> there will be a committee that checks and validate resumes.
This probably requires some thought - forming core should establish
guidelines, rules, policies, etc. but should also be subject to
them. Otherwise building maintaining reputation will be precarious
(and will risk having serious people wanting to invest their time).
> I do not
> think the Corporation should check/approve the work of the members
> but should check the satisfaction of the Customers (surveys) to make
> sure the Member behaved appropriately and did not damage the image of
> the Corporation. Over time the Corporation would build a database of
> business solutions that Members can use to provide better service to
> the customers.
should be some balance of autonomy and resources. For example, I
would _like_ to have resources from non-interested people review my
work, and be able to make that part of the process. Availability of
peer review is one of the benefits I would like to see. Requiring it
really requires discussion, thought - I don't think it wise to
prematurely close the door on this without good consideration.
....
Regards,
Yarko
Chris Leonello
Very encouraged by the lively discussion.
> To clarify what I have in mind (and everything is negotiable). I am
> not talking about something to capitalize on web2py.
this is necessary, since clients often demand (right or wrong) a
specific tool or language that members may be quite capable of
implementing. It would be a shame to pass up those opportunities.
Also, although I feel web2py is the overall best web framework around,
it is just a tool. To solve a problem, you have to pick the right
tool or combination of tools.
You mention 3 classes of members:
> You are an expert in Open Source Software and you want to start your
> own consulting company.
> the side and do not want to open your own consulting company.
> forming your own company.
Even if you don't find a lot of interest on this group, you would find
a few very interested developers among most other open source groups.
How do you determine if/when to pursue this idea further? Based on
response from this group? Do you have other channels looking for
interest?
You mention these benefits:
> ..."how can we trust you?" "What have you build so far?" "what
> questions ...
>... The Corporation could also help you with advertisement,
> match your skills with those of other members of the corporation in
> order to build small groups and solve bigger problems faster.
> pay you as capital distribution.
does to me), who only have time to focus on doing work, not billing,
legal, marketing, etc. Who does those tasks, though? Is it hired out
by the corporation? if so, how is payment for those services
equitably charged to the members. Do they all pay the same fees?
Different members will require different levels of help in these
areas. Of course we can't really answer these questions at this
point. These are items that I am thinking on though.
> The corporation would not be making money from your work. It would
> act more like a club or an "international association".
Although I would have to disagree that the corporation itself would
focus on having a social conscious or mission. I think a corporation
styled after a co-operative association with a very flat and
decentralized structure would gain traction among the open source
community, though. I think most of us working with and contributing
to open source do it for something other than monetary gain.
> Would this be valuable to people?
billing, networking, subcontracting, etc. should be valuable! You'd
have to be nuts not to evaluate it!
> Over time the value of the Corporation would surpass the sum of the
> value of its parts and we may rethink the business model.
be because clients don't buy the same thing over and over again and
the corporate goals have to adapt to what the company is capable of
producing and what the customer desires.
Massimo Di Pierro
On May 4, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Chris Leonello wrote:
>
> Hi Massimo,
>
> Very encouraged by the lively discussion.
>
>> To clarify what I have in mind (and everything is negotiable). I am
>> not talking about something to capitalize on web2py.
>
> The corporation then wouldn't be limited to web2py solutions? I think
> this is necessary, since clients often demand (right or wrong) a
> specific tool or language that members may be quite capable of
> implementing. It would be a shame to pass up those opportunities.
> Also, although I feel web2py is the overall best web framework around,
> it is just a tool. To solve a problem, you have to pick the right
> tool or combination of tools.
We would have to build a toolbox and I agree web2py should play an
important role in it but, whatever is in toolbox, the corporation
should have a longer lifespan than any of those tools.
> You mention 3 classes of members:
>
>> You are an expert in Open Source Software and you want to start your
>> own consulting company.
>
>> You may be already employed but perhaps want to make some money on
>> the side and do not want to open your own consulting company.
>
>> You may be a student or a professor and do not want to spend the time
>> forming your own company.
>
> I believe you will find many interested developers in these groups.
> Even if you don't find a lot of interest on this group, you would find
> a few very interested developers among most other open source groups.
> How do you determine if/when to pursue this idea further? Based on
> response from this group? Do you have other channels looking for
> interest?
No. I have not discussed it with anybody else. It would be wise to
discuss with a lawyer and an accountant.
>
> You mention these benefits:
>
>> ..."how can we trust you?" "What have you build so far?" "what
>> happens if you go out of business?"
>> ... it may be easier to answer those
>> questions ...
>
>> ... The Corporation could also help you with advertisement,
>> marketing and some legal questions. The corporation will help you
>> match your skills with those of other members of the corporation in
>> order to build small groups and solve bigger problems faster.
>
>> Corporation could help you because it would bill you customers and
>> pay you as capital distribution.
>
>> members who want to subcontract you jobs.
>
> Again, this (should) appeal to many developers in those categories (it
> does to me), who only have time to focus on doing work, not billing,
> legal, marketing, etc. Who does those tasks, though? Is it hired out
> by the corporation? if so, how is payment for those services
> equitably charged to the members. Do they all pay the same fees?
> Different members will require different levels of help in these
> areas. Of course we can't really answer these questions at this
> point. These are items that I am thinking on though.
I am not sure how much the corporation should actually do other than
dealing with information in the most automated possible way. for
example I am not sure we can afford to have the corporation hire
layers (my experience is that they cost a lot and do very little) but
we can maintain of list of template contracts (posted by members and
anonymized) and a list of trusted laywers (also posted by the
members) with their fees and contact information. We could negotiate
rates for members.
The corporation could setup a web site that would print a PDF bill,
allow the customer to pay by credit card and 1) expense it
immediately by paying the member as subcontractor or 2) compute taxes
and credit the member for the remaining part as capital distribution
(I am assuming this is the legal way of doing it, we may need more
research). The corporation would pay an accountant once/year to sort
out details and pay corporate taxes.
>> The corporation would not be making money from your work. It would
>> act more like a club or an "international association".
>
> I think yarko was on to an idea with the social cause aspect.
> Although I would have to disagree that the corporation itself would
> focus on having a social conscious or mission. I think a corporation
> styled after a co-operative association with a very flat and
> decentralized structure would gain traction among the open source
> community, though. I think most of us working with and contributing
> to open source do it for something other than monetary gain.
I agree. I am not talking about something with a social cause
although I think there social value in having (software) products
developed by people who care as opposed to by underpaid employees of
large corporations who's only goal is increase the wealth of the
investors.
yarko
> > Although I would have to disagree that the corporation itself would
> > focus on having a social conscious or mission. I think a corporation
> > styled after a co-operative association with a very flat and
> > decentralized structure would gain traction among the open source
> > community, though. I think most of us working with and contributing
> > to open source do it for something other than monetary gain.
>
> I agree. I am not talking about something with a social cause
> although I think there social value in having (software) products
> developed by people who care as opposed to by underpaid employees of
> large corporations who's only goal is increase the wealth of the
> investors.
>
as the many web frameworks of recent history attest, intentions and
effectiveness are not one in the same. Many people who "care" have
not the resources for dramatic improvements they would care to make...
many consultants care deeply, and work _underpaid_ because of costs
and efficiencies they do not have within their reach. Some are
economies of scale, but (as the many open sourece frameworks suggest)
there is more to the equation.
As the "Finiteness" paper points out, a competant solution with
minimal structure (that can also be read as minimal energy - much like
neural network learning - there is a consistent, broad message here!)
is called for.
A club associates people - I suggest this is not enough for success of
individuals... (why don't you use PHP-Nuke, or Drupal, or ....
HTML?... you see my point) --- _real_success depends on methods for
more than just implementing solutions - but how to reach optimal
solutions (e.g. efficiency).
That level of caring will work more broadly.
Massimo Di Pierro
_real_success depends on methods for
more than just implementing solutions - but how to reach optimal
solutions (e.g. efficiency).
yarko
hopeful that _this_ will raise impetus and interest in more minds
involved in that, which I invited you for a couple of beers over -
which includes my experience from last 25 years or so.... and which
has roots in two non-engineering things, the finiteness paper being
one.
Besides a set of tables to enter your product development into, and
the rules / behaviors to assist with appropriate abstractions, etc.
(what I though of when I said "processes defined") the non-
engineering stuff could be developed as tutorials / skills training
for gathering the correct requirements, knowing when something is
missing in the requirements, and so forth...
Really - I've been thinkging about this at some level for ~15+
years.....
Beer soon? (Read the Finiteness paper first...)
Massimo Di Pierro
Massimo
yarko
interfaces, components, etc are well defined is you could _use_
already tested / deployed member-components easily (easily find the
correct ones, or the ones worthy of abstraction).
This level of operation doesn't exist at most corporations; would be
a BIG advantage if accessible... and possibly a source of additional
revenue for members....
possibilities are really great here.... where to start (not bite off
too much to start) is the interesting part....
grapeape42
Is anyone still interested in exploring this idea?
If so, I am very interesting in starting a dialog.
The idea of open source is to benefit the collective, sometimes even
at the expensive of the project itself(think back of how many os
projects shuttered the doors when it was obvious that something more
beneficial to the collective was available). In os, a few tend to do
the bulk of the work, and the collective profits. These principles are
the exact opposite of the modern corporation.
I think that the core idea, of turning a corporation structure inside
out, by leveraging the available human resources to benefit the
collective in general and the intrepid few, specifically, as opposed
to strictly pursuing profit, is novel and worth investigating.
Some of the points that Massimo made about being able to have a
infrastructure to ease the mind of clients concerning, support,
longevity, ability, etc. are valid and would be a lifesaver to some
smaller or newer developers, but even more important, in my mind at
least, is the human networking elements that he eluded to. Access to
graphic designers, salesmen(women), headhunters, contract procurement
specialists, developers, quality review, financiers, ...and the list
goes on.
The kernel of the idea that I find intriguing, is that we can develop
a social circle, geared toward individual (or collective) monetary
profit, that would normally be available only to people that are
involved in huge corporations, went to the best ivy league
universities, or grew up in a social class that afforded them those
opportunities.
Think about it! How many companies can even boast a 200+ developer
pool?
I thoroughly like the idea of an open-source corporation(or just a
club), granted it needs much more thought, but I think the idea in
principle has merit and is work investigating.
I am willing to dedicate time and perhaps money to try this out.
If anyone else is interested, we can either set up a dedicated thread
or start to flesh things out via email.
Let me know.
Mike
carlo
but after that I promise to read all of your interesting posts and
spend my bits of thought.
carlo
Massimo Di Pierro
more opinions and suggestions from other users.
Yarko for example expressed some very interesting ideas on this thread.
Massimo
Chris Leonello
further.
yarko
area? How many elsewhere?
Hernan Olivera
Welcome to all these ideas!
I think this will need a lot of thinking, but maybe it's the next step
in the software evolution.
+1 for me
Greetings from Argentina
Chris Leonello
grapeape42
It might be a little better format for this type of brainstorming, yet
still be open and allow everyone to be involved.
I have a lot of ideas for this concept.
Massimo Di Pierro
grapeape42
let me know when you have it ready, I have several ideas I would like
to explore, and look forward to brainstorming about this.
I sincerely believe that if this idea is properly developed it could
be revolutionary!
Mike