Transparent/Open/Free Entrepreneurialism

Posted 25 Aug 2001 at 23:08 UTC by mirwin Share This

Is it possible to set up an economic endeaver that fairly rewards a community for collective stewardship of the commons and creation of further value that is then also placed in the commons?

Transparent/Open/Free Entrepreneurialism

Goal: Compensation for altruistic developers, entrepreneurs, investors, and associated communities/societies.

Is it possible to set up an economic endeaver that fairly rewards a community for collective stewardship of the commons and creation of further value that is then also placed in the commons?

I think it is. Others do too. There are some links to others assessment below. I think someone should prototype it and publish procedures and how to(s) to the public domain.

I started to outline a business plan for how such a community might be setup and operate initially. Sufficiently well defined such that it would be obvious to the casual reader the power and majesty of human potential interconnected via some tools, paradigms, and other assorted stuff being utilized or prototyped around the planet today.

FUD Effect - Resist its nefarious influence. Advised by TQM and Open Source advocates at large.

Then fear set in, what if my ideas are ridiculed? What if my apprenticeship status is revoked? I floated some balloons at usenet (search for Michael R. Irwin, if you must .... Fair Warning: I was not always in best form and some of the writings and incoherent ranting may be disturbing. Cognitive dissonance and engagement was the goal, not sweet talking the mob.) about applying the collaborative open paradigm to engineering some space technologies that would lower the barriers to entry to entrepreneurs developing space related businesses. I intentionally did not moderate or polish the ideas because I was looking for real feedback in what would work and what would not, not buyin from bozos hoping to allow me to work myself to death while they sat back and shared in the benefits.

A good idea from a nut is still a good idea. The universe does not play favorates. Physics works the same for everybody who has the knowledge and talent to apply it sufficiently to at least learn from non fatal mistakes. Evolution happens.

It turned out that it was the wrong forum. Most there want billions from somewhere. Take your pick: government, Ayn Rand superheroes, Arabian Oil Shieks, etc. With these addtional billions in hand they will then proceed to produce TRILLIONS and keep it all for themselves and their investors. Mine! Mine! ... sorry .... Ours! Ours!

A few who frequent that forum are attempting to work within the existing U.S. economic framework to develop better methods. Success has been extremely limited so far. U.S.G. money is directed via corrupt political processes. Behomeths are going out of business left and right (in Aerospace sector) and have no money for little idea testing with the little guys (Less than a billion in capitalization, rocketry is currently very expensive.) anymore. Little companies go out of business and the intellectual effort in finding betters ways (much of it redundant with many other companies) is lost forever somewhere in the U.S. Patent Office, never to be used again for fear someone with a patent claim might show up. Worse, professional webs of trust, prestige, competency, excellence are shredded and cast to the winds. Some fragments retain links to other fragments. New teams must be built from scratch.

Even worse from my viewpoint: While the skills and talents necessary to do meaningful open engineering and the entrepreneurial skills to make money off of the same are present there ( &*), they typically have insufficient web and computer science skills to support the necessary distributed infrastructure to make such a venture viable in the short term. Short term non-viability is the same as non viable in a standard business model, positive cash flows are quickly required to pay expenses. Probably similar constraints are true of communities, even distributed online communities. If some value is not returned immediately to the individual community users then the community begins evaporating.

Some key factors regarding my proposal or concept if it is viable (I think. These by no means provably complete, correct, sufficient, desirable or necessary by some standards. ) are as follows:

1.) There are other forms of capital than U.S. cash dollars.

2.) Solid communities can invest partime effort in mutually satisfactory goals or promising endeavers.

3.) Web traffic can be used to generate revenue in a myriad of ways.

4.) A true community of people with diverse talents and satisfactory community standards that allow free and safe (relative to the wilds or non community .... the dreaded, and rightfully so, strangers) interaction and cooperation can accomplish anything within the reach of mankind. Proof: Self evident. See history.

5.) The technologies exist or are being prototyped today that will allow the formation of incredibly effective virtual communities that are physically distributed in meatspace but almost instantaneously connected via the Internet.

6.) A decent legal team can help us design an approach that will comply with SEC requirements while meeting the needs of the community as we define it without handing control to Armani suits for their customary cut and assistance in defrauding unwary investors.

Successful methods have been demonstrated that create valuable intellectual property of some kinds. Primarily software tools. Scientific knowledge is an earlier example with hit and miss application. Older versions of U.S. patent and copyright were at least in intent intended to further develop the commons. This has obviously been subverted to at least some extent recently.

Methods of delivering some value back more directly to the developers are being explored haphazardly. Mixed results so far.

I propose that those of us who are interested form a online community for the express purpose of protyping and perfecting an entrepreneurial startup company model which gets started by using the assets already available in the public domain or software commons to create and return additional value to the commons while providing fair compensation to the company staff and community participants. The long term goal would be delivery of proven tested methods related to transparent entrepreneurialism (or other phrase of community preference) back to the larger communities from which we spring. We shall do this by showing them the profits and methods. The freedom and joy of fair (by the community standards) creation and distribution of wealth sufficient for ourselves and our associated communities.

What would we need to this?

Getting Started

Opinions will vary. Who knows? Perhaps a draft consensus sufficient to get started will emerge stone soup fashion somewhere soon. Here is my current shortlist to getting a specific prototype community (much is already present here at advogato and elsewhere around the web) started:

1.) An operational web site focused on this challenging proposal. Start with vanilla mod_virgule and develop better tools as we go.

2.) CVS server (or other functional equivalent) for developers to submit authorized or volunteered code

3.) A community process to apply community approved changes to a test development site.

4.) A community process to update the operational site to new stable versions with minimal disruption and loss of active data.

5.) A webfront to begin deriving income from the community expertise as it develops. This to be incorporated as soon as the organizational details can be worked out to the satisfaction of the community.

6.) A committment to success and growing the community at the expense of no one. I.E. We take care of each other individually and as a community in constructive ways and try to avoid any individual overworking themselves in pursuit of this tenuous goal. It may be a long haul to financial success and day jobs with partime contributions will be necessary until some revenue streams are developed and stable. Further to continue growing the community we must have mechanisms for effective participation at the periphery even after the core long established and effective members of the community have gone professional or moved on.

7.) A leap of faith. Rather than asking for ours up front (via large IPOs, high salaries, etc.) in exchange for this valuable contribution. We just do it and deliver it back to the commons.

8.) Some software engineers Top Down Design

9.) Some hackers (beginners accepted, more the merrier but too many will impede short term progress while assuring long term success via the scientific method and mutual training frenzies/flame wars) Bottom up optimization. Evolution. Intuitive genius or inspiration. Whatever.

10.) Other participation required: Legal, Marketing, Documentation, Training, Shipping, users, customers. Candidate target: Engineering Desktops and/or high performance computing resources.

11.) Other participation useful: Rest of the planet.

Some Background via Previous Advogato Data

Some interesting thoughts from miscellaneous Advogato masters are available here at these links or articles: Some thoughts on revenue mechnasm and sources of free/open code. Musing on the Tragedy of the Commons. This article thread summarizes several business models.

Probably elsewhere locally as well. I am only so far along in data mining and detailed conceptualization and I am feeling itchy. There is a lot of economic injustice in the world that I think a successful prototype as described above could correct. Why? Because alternatives encourage fair play. With alternatives and freedom to choose according to personal interests, evolution happens and things get better, or at least move in the direction selected. The spiral is up. See history.

If you are interested in further rantings and/or background I spent a lot of time at last year. Not all of it looks or is phrased rationally so try to think it through for yourself, to your own satisfaction. My diary here is rather incoherent to date so it will not be of much assistance. It does make clear why some method of augmenting the trust metric (journaling tool, project notebook, etc.) with public/private or some personal categorization such as notes/rant/political/engineering/project/team/buddies/lovers etc. might be useful.

Credibility Check ..... This is supposd to be upfront before you tune out.

I have worked in government and as a private consultant. I could apple polish this submittal; using techniques learned in college communications and professional proposal writing. My skills in the past have been worth millions to employers and customers in the proper place at the proper time. What would be the point? Ultimately for an economic community/organization such as is hypothesied as feasbile and proposed herein to form successfully; a few or many of you must become clear in your own minds that it is feasible and useful to yourself. That you get enough back by your own criteria to make it worth choosing to make the initial risk venture capital investment of your time and other invested resources, if any.

Behold the power of the Internet

I will leave you with a bit of paraphrased mentoring that the mentor of a master or journeyer shared with him and which he has now shared with me; recently, without his knowledge via his local diary entry or an article. I would give a link and/or his persona but I have no easy way to recover it at the moment, it was in an article thread somewhere in the advogato archives.

He wrote something like this:

When I was but an apprentice I pointed out to my mentor that a certain software developer was not so good. There was a trivial bug in his software that was causing me much grief and I had repeatedly asked him to fix it. He would not get around to it! This made me angry, it would be so easy to fix and yet it was still continually causing me problems!

"Why then have you not fixed it grasshopper?" replied his mentor.

Oh. A clue that even I can fathom.

Resources for the commons, fair compensation for developers, and space settlement in my time. What to do?

Once again, phrased a little differently.

I propose a prototype of a better business organization that is incorruptible without first destroying the community it serves.

If a cult develops we, the people, click away and try again. If the compensation is unfair or not useful we clickaway and try again. If the community gets too big to be effective and develops too many interests, we split up to try various approaches in diverse environment and propragate results back to the commons. A successful protype of this type of company will spread quickly and not go unnoticed in the world. So I assume. I guess I should look around a bit more. It seems a bit obvious and similar in many ways to current small business practice in the U.S.

It will work well because knowledge is an interesting form of potential wealth. You can keep it and you can give it away. You can give it away and still make money helping people understand it and apply it effectively. The more you giveaway the more that filters back. Some talent and organization is required to realize the potential and keep some of the material wealth resulting from its sweet fruition.

Nondisclosure Issues

This business plan (if successful) placed in the public domain, cannot be stolen, only suppressed. I can go implement it anywhere, anytime I have free (uncensored, not low cost) internet access to the mob. It can be implemented by any community or individual who can help create a community anywhere, anytime. It might even work in a physical community if a tight focus and dense resources can be located. Silicon Valley?


Reward for sharing the fruit of your collective invested intellectual labor or efforts with any or all others freely is not "communism".

It is capitalism.

People work hard on intellectual assets and the capital invested is not trivial by any measure of opportunity cost known to economists despite prattling about supply and demand curves after self serving destruction of supply or demand. It deserves a fair return to the laborer as well as Armani suits and absentee stockholders. If the return is self satisfaction, so be it. If it is cash delivered by an organized community in recognition of past performance or your day job, so be it. Wall Street does fairly well at regulating away competition. I believe there is still sufficient freedom to out manuever them legally in the U.S.

If laborers can organize in communities for the not sole profit of themselves and others, via the Internet, then I believe that this can be defended effectively, legally, and truthfully in court, public, in the media, via free presses, on the housetops and in the malls.

Christianity Pitch

Paraphrased loosely and concisely, when asked by city elders for the secret of the universe Christ replied with a simple set of rules that I believe have emergent characteristics:

1. Love God (creator, creation, universe, life, positive force, the source - slice it for yourself or find the original context, new testament.)

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I have never been much of a "Christian" as it is popularly defined in the U.S. Organized churches here look (to me) corrupt and self serving with little application of anything very useful to anyone other than themselves and their own interests. Any serious study quickly runs into severe accuracy problems, conflicting sources, quotations misused out of context, and constant pressure to take someone's word for all kinds of inane blather.

Perhaps I am now guilty of the same behaviour. I hope not. I think a community/company/organization built around the principle of sharing created value with all others freely; simultaneously earning sufficient revenue to be self supporting while creating further freely shared value; would better implement the above rule set than hiding knowledge and restricting supplies for personal benefit while others suffer.

While I do not currently classify myself as a Christian, I perceive Christ as at least a compassionate full grown human being with a lot of native genius and talent. I bet he and his would have been decent hackers and maybe even elite if the giants that went before them had already created computers and the Internet ....

Sometimes I wonder if the universe and/or the creator, or maybe just some other kiddies, is/are waiting for us to get our act together and come out to play.

Final pitch

Your feedback and/or participation would highly appreciated. I would really like to see this problem addressed, solutions prototyped and the full growth potential of human economies powered by Internetworks realized. I think it would assist several personal goals and benefit me personally. I also think it would help a lot of people out worldwide.

My newfound mentor, once removed, did not say I had to fix the bug by myself. Nor are you under any obligation to help. There are (last I heard) approximately 100 million people who regularly use the Internet, 50% in the U.S.A. There are also approximately 6 Billion other people on the planet who can potentially help me with this little problem.

It might be fun! Certainly educational. You might meet interesting people. It will be designed for rapid propagation and desirable emergent behavior. If the prototype works even marginally better than linux IPOs, then in the long term it could be lucrative. If a prototype is proven effective then great things become possible. I have some ideas and so do many others. See the game of "Civilization". I understand there are many freeciv clients and implementations. Pick your wonder and contribute effectively at an eventual personal profit. Diversify your portfolio carefully so you do not have to wait too long for some fruit to consume or share.

I look forward to your response here in public or in your public diary here at advogato. We can move the discussion as soon as someone with the resources and a willingness to tie them until they choose otherwise commits them and lets us know. Thanks for your time, interest, and comments regarding this matter.

I wouldn't work, posted 27 Aug 2001 at 15:43 UTC by Malx » (Journeyer)

Let I be your opponent :)

It whouldn't work (at least for a long time).

First of all - you need source of strategy to this company/community.
It could be one person (you?) - TheLeader - but it is one point of failure (to simplify - he could be killed and all will crash) // "Stranger in a strange land" ?
It could be idea (in it's final unmodified version) - it could be implemented in software - but it is obvious, that it is impossible to implement such software for all cases of life and future law development
It could be Advogato like system - with SEED and levels, derived from likeness to SEED person. This also wouldn't work - see SF book "Death or glory"[Russian] for details (cite about this). In it person level was based on psichological likeness (goals, belifs etc) to SEED, but system still was taken over but extremists with the only goal - "to become leaders".
It could be community govern company - but it is reimplementation of democracy with all politicians (who will interpret to public value and meaning of choices one need to take - they whould be trusted persons). This brings all dark side effects of political life......

In such company/community weak point is people :) their behaviour.

Also what you whould propose to solve problem of second wave and children/relative? If you whould have geographiacally localized community - it will exist untill there whould come people with different intensions (friends , people who seek money , relatives of geeks (wife/husband/children) - they are not likely to be GNU/Free soft fans... Also they must to have job and some level in community.
If you persuade them to be FSoft geeks - it whould be religion..... If not - they'll want to have voice for whole-community questions. (Same as geeks want to have now in US Law :)

Excellent! Malx has volunteered as a "dear enemy" to assist with clarification efforts., posted 28 Aug 2001 at 00:38 UTC by mirwin » (Master)

I shall attempt to address Malx's insightful points as I understand them and have paraphrased them:

Paraphrased points in bold:

1. It would take a long time to prototype and prove the viability.

I think it might take some time to get started. Volunteer participation must be attracted. We must start with little or no cash and our own intellectual resources and material goods that are on hand. OTOH Here in the U.S. most people have some surplus that can be invested when they get seriously interested in various pursuits. If it works then it will be a valuable contribution to all participants as well as all future users of the commons. We should try it and find out. Explosive growth is possible one small successful efforts have been proven and published effectively.

2. Need a source of strategy.

We have proven strategic assets. We can draw from the successes of the open source/free software paradigm and learn where we can from the mistakes. We have masters amongst us in more than just name, to provide insight and inspiration. We have journeyers who can understand or misinterpret the masters insights sufficiently to try out new things and find out what does and does not work. We have apprentices, observers and casual dropins from around the world to provide the necessary mutations in ideas that only sheer ignorance, idiocy, or naive genius can provide to stalled creative work attempting improvement on the genius that has come and gone before.

We are strategizing now, you and I, and many others various places here at advogato and at derivative sites that are springing up like weeds. Keep in mind it starts slow. Some of the people interested in advogato are people like you and I who have something other than sheer mastery or pure love of elegant or reviewable code to contribute in lieu of our limited coding skills. The efficacy of the band and the wagon has been discovered and a larger community is attempting to join the bandwagon builders. A minimum threshhold access to technology prowess, computers and internet access is required. There is evidence that this initial barrier to entry will soon be surpassed by growing numbers of people as the merit of these techniques are increasingly proven. This evidence is the vast throngs of fellow neophytes juggling our elbows as we attempt to learn and apply this new paradigm.

This will be peer to peer although there will certainly be shifting concentrations of trust, prestige, control, etc. If you reread "Stranger in a Strange Land" you will find that Heinlein ended with a process spreading out and propagating just as history shows us that early Christianity and other successful religions did. The initial catalysts in both cases were crucified and reviled too late for effective suppression. In many ways we could assist some of our fellow journeyers by undertaking this prototyping effort. When successful it will dilute the animosity currently being aimed at scapegoats to attempt to intimidate the entire community. This is an old tactic but difficult to apply to large associations of free peoples with free access to information flows and knowledge bases.

In many ways what I have proposed is an improved version of Democracy applied to commerce. Continuous community elections or certification in a voluntary association managing some specified business affairs for the benefit of the community. If the prototypes are successful then even more improved versions will evolve from the inevitable trial and error and evolution of the concepts that are now published with data and results in the commons.

Stakeholders in the U.S. already influence large corporations to varying degrees. I merely propose that for our own benefit we start small and prove out an alternate improved approach to manage economic activities more openly without absentee stockholders and untouchable executives or managers. Much of what is wrong with U.S. business today is not the body of law that governs them. It is the information hiding and the shielding of the decision makers from the wrath of other stakeholders affected by executive and insider decisions. With no consequences it is easy to make decisions for the benefit of a select few at the painful expense of many others powerless to respond. Boards of Directors elected or eliminated on the basis of known certification guidelines watched by informed masters and alert apprentices with the ear of their experienced and discerning mentors will (in my opinion) be much more capable trustworthy decision makers capable of thinking through complex issues for the best interests of the community. Evolution via the ongoing continuous and instantanous certification process should train them that way, if they wish to remain in power. If they do not remain in power then their policies can and are immediately modified by successors. This is not perfect, the community will still have consequences created by previous decisions but at least the damage control and future actions will be more inline with community expectations.

3. Software automation cannot handle it all.

I agree. I think some support tools will reduce the workload, but the core of the certification processes will have to remain in the communities distributed gray matter and organize itself to communicate, inform, and evaluate effective via the trust webs and other more personal methods. The webs will never be perfect and must be corrected and updated as appropriate but they can offload much routine stuff and assist human beings with convenient access to information in appropriate sets with appropriate access.

I expect many schisms or "religious" wars over how much information and which kinds should be public vs. restricted. How, who, where, why, etc. the information is filtered between various participants home servers and browsers will always be of concern and importance. Obviously as the web fills in densely and people start to have direct personal contact and private email communications; there will be parallel evolving flows of information. This is good. We are not trying to replace anything with the trust webs and virtual communities, we are trying to add new possibilities and opportunities.

Do you wish to build robots for personal pleasure and/or profit but do not know anyone else in your home town of 1,000 people with the skills or desires to do so? Join and begin working with the grandmasters (actually probably spend a little time working your way up the scale or inward towards the core in some various areas of competency before you get to interact with a grandmaster, in a democratic meritocracy you will inevitably be required to show merit to at least a substantial minority of the community to get any traction) while making your fortune (or a living). In the U.S. in the earlier centuries there was a saying to ambitious youngsters: "Go west young man!" Soon it will be something like: "Get on line! Youngsters, oldsters and opportunists of all ages are welcome because we need you to help enrich us all."

As an aside, is providing for free (as in beer!) an up to 15 MB web page to any Internet user who wants one. Two years ago I had to pay $220/year for 40 MB and oafish support. The paid service periodically scrapped the Microsoft extentions my Front Page designed content was utilizing and turned out to be useless for business advertising as a result. I am quite certain has an angle to make money off of me. Nevertheless the homepage is very useful. I benefit and they benefit, obviously they are not totally clueless even though big and successful. This process was totally automated. I dealt with no human being setting up and implementing my home page. The software processes are better and cheaper than two years ago. Perhaps we should include a link to the in the getting started or FAQ for advogato. The homepage is very useful in first contact situations between potential collaborators and certifiers.

4. Single point of failure. Leaders and greedy or power hungry intent to become leaders.

In a community where all are potentially leaders in any area and many are leaders in many areas, there is no singular LEADER, only peers acting as mentors, mentees or fellow team members. Both the union and the management will hate this. When conflicts and discrepancies arise (and they will) there will be a flurry of activity and communications regarding important ones and people will suffer the consequences of their actions. Which people, which actions? The aggregate community will let us know as the ripples spread out in trust and prestige flow and personal opinions start to stabilize regarding personal and community interests according to personal perceptions.

5. Dark side of political life ....

The dark side of politicics in Democracies stems from information hiding and hysteresis effects. Once elected to a specified term the politicians have no necessity to deal with constituencies on a daily basis. In large Democracies and even in small community Democracies with election terms there is little immediate feedback to the politician. The near instanteous certification metric flows change this and will have an effect on behavior. I think positive but we will have to try various mechanisms out and find out.

6. Weak point in communities is people. Their behavior.

Agreed. I believe that there will need to be mutual self education and information flows in virtual distributed communities and economic benefits accrued to all participants or the communities will not grow and prosper. Everyone participates in the community as they choose and when they choose. Trolls will become outcasts because the only penalty available for true troublemakers will be to avoid them. A graduated series of categorical metrics will act as a flexible feedback loop or learning mechanism as community members learn to use the metrics effectively. If an apprentice of yours irritates me badly enough I may downgrade your certificate, not his. This would then encourage turn down or disapproval of proposed certificate links/relationships. When misbehavior excludes the miscreant from participation they desire they will either adapt to the community standards, run a revolt and fork the community with fellow rebels, move on, or something else entirely unforeseeable. Things will happen and adjustments will be made. That is life. We support it with code, we do not constrain or codify it. Remember these are voluntary free associations limited only by the individuals vested interest. Escape is only a click away and stay away, away.

7. Second wave and children.

If we get to behometh Corporation status with valuable stock property then eventually the stock will be traded. This can be limited to community participants in a closely held (non publicly traded) companies. Stock buy back plans can be designed around various goals. Various communities will undoubtedly use different strategies.

I propose that opportunity be equally open to all, children and newcomers and that community based companies attempt to maintain control of their company by purchasing options and stocks back when feasible and appropriate.

This raises an interesting point regarding open source that we should discuss at length some time. Is guerilla warfare against Microsoft really the most effective strategy? Perhaps a community based company built around supporting unsupportable MS products could successful stage a hostile takeover of Microsoft and take it private in the next decade or two. Since the OSI seems committed to this economic war perhaps they would be the appropriate agent or forum to lead that discussion.

8. Geographically based community based companies.

This is not my true interest at the moment. I mentioned it in passing because it is worth learning from success. I do think it would be possible to augment an existing consulting practice of some types with the type of site I am talking about. Consider a medical practice or a legal firm on retainers. What do the community (customers, employees, etc.) stakeholders get for loyalty to the firm in exchange for supporting them with economic activity? Perhaps a legal firm could add a chat room for trivial oft repeated questions regarding simple legal matters. Perhaps a medical community (hospital or clinic) could benefit from a community where chronically ill patients can support each other and participate in decision making applicable to the community. Some hospitals are publically funded and policy issues become public policy. Might be useful to have an informed self organized bloc of voters in hospital management's corner come budget cut time.

Most U.S. communities are past company town status, although not all. I would propose to limit community participation in ways appropriate to the level of participation. An apprentice or casual public user cannot expect to have the same weight as a CEO or the board of directors of a going concern. They can vote with their certificates and interact in the specified forums and attempt to influence policy at any time. This does not mean that our grandmasters need waste valuable time, expertise, "leadership" : ), dealing with them unless they are "An idiot with a good idea." which the community wishes to "assimilate".

In the future, with proven techniques in hand, I will probably be much more interested physical communities because larger efforts of virtual communities that involve much physical manufacture, shipping, handling, etc will undoubtedly encourage some point concentration of assets and participation to extract maximum economic benefits for the community stakeholders.

Thanks for your comments.

I hope that my attempted clarification, assimilation, and defense of dearly held points will inspire further comments and strategizing. I welcome tactical suggestion as well, either here or in the diaries. I believe that excellent low startup cost revenue streams will be key. It is easier to avoid squabbling over the benefits if we are rapidly growing to enough to fairly go around.

Another possible approach is to develop the intangible benefits quickly and largely such that there is plenty of trust, prestige and self interest to encourage working the inevitable problems out instead of allowing the demise of the protoytping communities and/or companies.

You are an excellent debate opponent or "dear enemy" sir. I have just now certified you as a journeyer because:

1.) I found your similar interests to my own in your diary.

2.) You have improved my understanding regarding the potential of this concept via necessity of defense of what I perceive as valid key points.

3.) You have provided excellent points for appropriate modification of the strategy.

Sincerely yours,

Michael R. Irwin

B.S. Engineering Physics, 1984, Oregon State University

A.C.J, Certified Journeyer (Simulated for effect. What will this be worth in 2 years and how shall we split up the cash revenue benefits, if any?)

Transparent/Open/Free Entrepreneurialism, posted 11 Sep 2001 at 03:35 UTC by Gregory » (Apprentice)

My word you are a dreamer :)

Entrepreneurialism and business are as much about people as they are about money.
Such a online community would not work, there is no such thing as transparent entrepreneurialism.

Only greed and hunger.


The only good is knowledge and the only evil ignorance. - Socrates

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

Share this page