Group: http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab/topics
- "observer2.0" <savetherich@gmail.com> Mar 30 06:12AM -0700 ^
a few responses in line
> There might not be an appetite for the project you suggest
sounds about right given the response, but the point is that any
project will bring ideas together into a working system in a way that
trying to build a system without any project to guide that system will
not.
> crew of people together. In many cases such as this we are working virtual
> environments so people don't know each other, don't have the level of trust
> required to dig into projects together etc.
agreed, the approach could be launched into a more niche community
with a deeper level of cross interaction history
> > find a project that is of broad interest,
> This is biggest challenge
i have some ideas on how this could be done algorithmically, but
communicating a vision implies communicating the context for that
vision, in order to show the vision has value… that context is hard
to transmit
> > previous contribution…
> What do you mean by this? I am assuming the initial contribution will not be
> financial. If so what do you stand to lose other than time?
Time, relations, some travel expenses, are the contributions, they
should be tracked and compensated in shares, even if you choose to
abandon the project midstream
> > who wants to build the world's largest Patent Portfolio of antibiotic
> > bacteriophages?
> Why, if this is a great idea, have the drug companies not being doing it?
everyone wanted to have the billion dollar antibiotic, but the rate of
antibiotic resistance is increasing such that this approach is now of
great interest
… the downside is this works mostly topically since you cant take
the bacteriophages internally or via injection (maybe they can be
sprayed into the lungs for TB) so its a smaller market than the whole
infection market… the truth is there is one commercial company that
is following this route with VC funding so i guess the market
opportunity questions are answerable… again, any broad interest
project is good, this is just an example
> wait until people have committed to tasks and then collectively determine
> the initial founder equity positions. This, however, wouldn't be much
> different from putting any team together.
my thoughts would be that give the people a chance to choose their
motivating amount, and scale down to reach 100% (so if 10 people each
want 50% of the equity, we go back and say would you work for 10% of
the equity?, some say yes others no, a market level is found and we
rock on to the next steps… everyone gets diluted in the next round
and so forth, but it could be decided how much dilution future rounds
entail (via a majority vote of all past shareholders)
cheers,
tudor
- Suresh Fernando <suresh@radical-inclusion.com> Mar 30 07:40AM -0700 ^
Tudor,
Have you looked at Chris Cook's LLC structure? You can find it in past
threads. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I've been giving a lot of thought to how to figure out how to align the
interests of OK members around some project to move this whole endeavour
from purely a discussion space towards a collaborative project.
in the last few months since I have focused more on how open collaboration
principles can be applied in the social finance space I think people have
gotten confused and it seems like the focus has been diluted. From my
perspective this is not the case. I have simply developed what I believe is
an innovative approach to applying open collaboration principles to solve a
pressing problem that is impeding the flow of capital to those that need it
most….
I hope to make this clearer, but I would be just as happy if there were
another focus that was of broad interest.
Thoughts?
Suresh
Post a Comment