[Dev-flock] Big collaboration opportunity.

[Clay Ward]

Hi folks.

I'm placing a spreadsheet that I've compiled it the files area of our
google groups page.  It lays out all of the players in the market area
we inhabit as ThoughtAndMemory.org.  The groups that most closely
resemble our model are listed at the top.  I thought that this
information would be worth each of you having access to now that we're
considering partnering (or competing) with www.citizensmarket.org.  I
feel that this sheet shows that our model is unique in a sea of
halfway competitors.

I've included a list of the organizations that I've actually
contacted.  A couple of the others I have heard rumors about.  So let
me know if you have any questions.  The one wild card is www.taoit.com.
They're working on making "a suite of responsible shopping tools" that
they haven't told me anything about.  So perhaps they'll surprise us.
Since we have an open source collaborative model, any of the
organizations that I've contacted have been able to see our design
process.  So at least we won't be surprising anyone with what we
offer.

Also, I talked with a member of the MIT press today, so there might be
an article about us brewing.

Please let me know what you're thoughts are.  Thanks!

-clay

On Dec 10, 1:21 am, "analucia berry" <analuci... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey everyone
>
> My first reaction is that it would be really good to share users (and
> by extension, data), at least in the beginning. More users from the
> get go makes the site seem more legitimate to a person who is
> considering whether or not to join. Of course if we go this route it
> should be very clear to people that their content will be shared with
> Citizens' Market and vice versa. And maybe the users should be labeled
> differently or marked somehow depending on which site they joined.
>
> I think users, data and status comparisons are all so closely
> intertwined that if you want to share one of those, you have to share
> all three.
>
> ALSO
>
> if you are on myspace, add Thought And Memory as your friend:www.myspace.com/buyitlikeyoumeanit
>
> and/or if you are on facebook, become a fan of T&M:http://mit.facebook.com/profile.php?id=6210188038
>
> thanks!
> *chia
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 1:28 PM, Clay Ward <c... at thoughtandmemory.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey, folks!
>
> >  I met with Stephane fromwww.citizensmarket.comyesterday.  They are
> > another Cambridge based non-profit start up with a mission similar to ours:
> > user generated social responsibility ratings that can be accessed through
> > cell phones.  Our tech team pounded some extra hours this week to make sure
> > that our prototype in progress was at an good stage for that meeting.  I
> > wanted to make sure to meet with Stephane from a strong position.  He was
> > impressed by the ambition of our service, by how far we are along, and by
> > the wacky thoroughness of our promotional materials.
>
> > They're behind us in some things and ahead of us in others:
>
> > They started their effort as part of a class at the Kennedy School of
> > Government.  They haven't applied for non profit status yet.  They haven't
> > started market research.  They don't really understand how SMS text
> > messaging works.  They don't have a human face to their website.  They don't
> > aspire to track as detailed a corporate model as we do.  They don't have a
> > lot of technical work finished.
>
> > Stephane works for Oxfam America and understands a lot about the current
> > state of global efforts by NGOs to get corporations to report on their
> > socially responsible impacts.  They do have a full Advisory Board.  They
> > have an interface design which is more intuitive than ours, but which has
> > less potential to describe (and therefore influence) actual corporate
> > practice.  They do have a 50 page business plan that Stephane will be
> > sending me soon.
>
> > The most important thing is that they're willing to collaborate.  I went
> > into the meeting deliberately playing cool because I wanted to let our
> > interaction evolve naturally (thank for the advice, Ona!)  So it was
> > Stephane that first brought up how great it would be to collaborate.  We
> > started talking about a many headed hydra or starfish model for
> > collaboration.  The general idea being that if we can work together at a
> > very deep level then we can begin a coalition of similarly minded groups
> > that share information.  Following are the potential ways that we discussed
> > collaborating.  I've listed them in order of increasing connectedness.  I
> > want to make sure that this discussion takes place deliberately and with all
> > of your blessings.  So please give me your feedback so that I know where our
> > comfort level with each issue stands.  Then I'll sit back down with him and
> > discuss possibilities:
>
> > We could share:
>
> > -Perspective.  This has already been very helpful to me and to Stephane.  We
> > discussed having a social meeting up between our teams.  We might have more
> > in common than even our services.
>
> > -Links.  Since different users will respond more to our complete and locally
> > motivated process or their general look at big companies, it might be nice
> > to be able to give users the choice of which to use.  These links could be
> > more or less prominent.  They already link to a for profit competitor of
> > ours that is struggling to survive:http://dotherightthing.com/.
>
> > -Gaps in service.  For the moment it looks like the main gap to help each
> > other fill is data.
>
> > -Data.  Sharing our underlying data would be a big win once we're both up
> > and running.  If we don't make it clear to users that we share data then
> > anyone that discovers both of our sites may be confused and turned off by
> > not knowing which site to contribute to.  Certainly we don't want to require
> > that users must add their data twice.
>
> > -Users.  If we get collaborative enough to share a user base then we're are
> > flirting with becoming the same company or formal coalition.  That's
> > something to do very carefully.  We don't want to share our user list with
> > each other unless we are formally associated (otherwise it feels wrong.)
>
> > -Legal.  We have the same model, legally.  We'll require the same
> > assistance.
>
> > -Team Coordination.  We're getting a lot more done than they are.  So if we
> > share team process I want to make sure that it's a shared effort and that
> > they have a lot to add.
>
> > -Specialized Software.  I told him that Delicious Monster is hooking us up
> > with bar code recognition software from images.
>
> > -Front-end Standardization.  Stephane brought my attention to the Global
> > Reporting Initiate's work to standardize corporate disclosure reports.
> > Their system of "interests" is similar to our "dimensions" except that their
> > list is based on GRI's.  The GRI's list is very different from our
> > user-centered list, but standards are critical to deep collaboration.
>
> > -Status Comparisons.  If a user is on both of our sites then it makes sense
> > that we both give them credit for what they've done on each other's sites.
>
> > -Community Organizing.  I'm not sure if they are planning to do as much real
> > world activism as we are.  But their connections, especially in the
> > non-profit world, could be really helpful.
>
> > -Back-end Development.  As we know, technology is a big hurdle.  They
> > currently only have one guy who is actively looking at their technology.
> > But their system is simpler than ours.  We would both benefit from shared
> > development and a final system that integrates easily.  But it's important
> > to let this happen naturally.  So I look forward to hearing what our
> > technologists say when they meet.  If they want to work together then
> > perhaps we can figure out how to share costs, etc.
>
> > -Advisory Board.  They're ahead of us on this one.  So perhaps our formal
> > alliance could also mean that we share board membership.
>
> > -Spending Money.  For example, if and when we get our own SMS gateway then
> > it would be nice to be able to split the cost with someone.  There will be
> > other examples down the road.  A delicate topic.
>
> > -Earning Money.  They are considering charging users for text message
> > access.  But if we offer it for free (as we plan to) then that shoots them
> > in the foot.  Other possibilities that we've both identified are advertising
> > (which our idea to add ratings to will make palatable), consulting with
> > industry, and donations.  They aren't not applying for grants now (good, it
> > would look bad if grants got applications from both of us.)  We didn't
> > really approach the idea of sharing our revenue streams.
>
> > -Leadership and Board Structure.  Depending on how negotiates develop we may
> > want to rethink how we operate.  Will we adopt the same mission?  Will we
> > remain entirely separate?  Will we found a coalition that both of us are a
> > part of? I think that Stephane wants to continue to operate a separate
> > project.  I know that I'm committed to leading our effort until it stands on
> > its own in a few years.  I think that we want to be very careful to make
> > sure that there are bright lines around our areas of resonsibility.  If it
> > looks like the best thing is to functionally merge then redundant leadership
> > will not be helpful.  In that case, perhaps Stephane would be willing to
> > lead our coalition building efforts while I continue to lead from our
> > current mission statement.
>
> > OK, so that's a big list and a lot to chew on.
>
> > Let me know what you think!
>
> > -clay
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google "Hugin and Munin" group.
To post to this group, send email to TwoRavens at googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to TwoRavens-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TwoRavens?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---