Hi Pierre ... instead of dumping all the questions on you at once, I'm going to start with three related topics. One is from me and two are from o.net regulars. If you'd prefer more or less questions at a time, let me know.

• How integral is this network to what you are working towards? Is there a "goal" for the network or is it just a great place to hang out and shoot the @#$%?
• Are you actually finding ways to change the world (and spend your money) in here or is it just a kind of chatspace for idealists?
• What is your process for selecting which projects to fund? How much "getting to know you in this collaborative environment" does it require?

The intrusive personal questions will come later, when you're softened up.

Okay, so maybe those aren't the most exciting questions in the world. Ya gotta start somewhere. I was hoping for a back-and-forth kind of thing.

So I'm pulling in a ringer - I invited Phil "Holy Fool" Cubeta over from the Omidyar Constitution discussion to come over and pose a few tough ones.

If that doesn't help, I'll post three more of the questions from the list.

I'm just winging it here, tryin' my best. Suggestions gratefully accepted.

Hi John,

Hey, I'm sorry for the delay... Mondays tend to have a lot of meetings. Doh! I'm actually working on the first set of questions right now, and hope to post something very soon...

A Simpsons quote! That's a good start!

Doh! Homer lives!

I'll just copy-and-paste your questions here and put my answers below them. Three is always a good number, but feel free to play it by ear. I just hope I don't end up rambling on for too long...

• How integral is this network to what you are working towards? Is there a "goal" for the network or is it just a great place to hang out and shoot the @#$%?

This is a simple question, yet it's also quite subtle. Clearly Pam and I have a set of goals and aspirations that help guide the work of the Omidyar Network, the organization (as opposed to the web site). We hope that the world will be a little better off than the way we found it -- and we believe that the source of that progress will be more and more people discovering their own power to make good things happen, and working together towards those ends.

At one level, omidyar.net is just one of many tools we will use to work towards those ends. As we've said, we believe in the power of collaboration -- people working together, in a bottom-up way -- and this web site makes that possible. We saw the value of online collaboration in our own internal work, and decided to open up this service to the outside world.

At another level, because we know we can't reach our aspirations alone, omidyar.net helps us work with others. Importantly, it helps us and our staff work with people who aren't employees of Omidyar Network. We have great staff internally, and they're all committed to the same goals of helping to empower individuals. But no matter how large our staff grows, there will always very relevant and important experience and expertise "out there."

In fact, believing in a bottom-up approach to me means that ultimately, much of our decision-making will be informed by what we learn from and see people doing right here at omidyar.net. Right now, just a few months after opening our public "Beta," we're a long way from that. But I'm pretty excited by some of the early signs we're seeing here.

• Are you actually finding ways to change the world (and spend your money) in here or is it just a kind of chatspace for idealists?

Well, continuing on the previous thread, I think it's too early to tell. I'm a big believer that if you get the process right, the results will take care of themselves. Sometimes that means you really can't predict where you'll end up: the journey itself is the reward. Right now, I think we're at the earliest possible stage of this journey. And people are just getting their feet wet, including all of us at Omidyar Network!

As far as the "chatspace for idealists" question, we hope people here will be able to be inspired by idealism, but inspired to action. Remember, we want people to discover their own power to make good things happen; not just talk about them, or suggest that others do something about it. :-)

As far as I'm concerned, you should understand that I don't consider myself an idealist. I'm more of a realist. I used to be told that I was naive, believing that "people are basically good." Well, with more than 100 million people trading on eBay worldwide, we now have experimental proof that given the right environment and structure, people are basically good. We can put a number on the percentage of people who aren't. By and large, the vast majority of people, more than 99% of them, want to do the right thing. Not everybody, of course; and when you have a large base like the world's population, 1% or 1/2% of the people being not-so-good turns out to be a very large number -- and can be a challenge to deal with. But with that kind of ratio, saying "most people are good" turns out to be a dramatic understatement.

Therefore, I don't think anyone can say today that having faith in human nature is naive. In an environment where billions of dollars change hands annually, and where you don't have to deal face-to-face with anyone, there's a potentially large incentive to take advantage of others' trust. If it weren't for the fact that more than 99% of the people out there aren't doing that, the entire system would break down. The fact that it doesn't is more about human nature than any system of security or enforcement.

So, I think sometimes the difference between an "idealist" and a "realist" isn't as obvious as it might seem. Maybe if everyone acted on their "naive" ideals, we would all discover how realistic they were.

• What is your process for selecting which projects to fund? How much "getting to know you in this collaborative environment" does it require?

Whew, an easy question after the long-winded responses I just made... Right now, we just don't know. We are as new to this way of interacting, collaborating, etc., as everyone else. We are learning as we go, so I really can't answer that question right now.

We still have a policy of not accepting unsolicited proposals, so the onus is on us to do the research to find the organizations that interest us. As I've said, hopefully one day omidyar.net will be a valuable part of that research -- and maybe will even lead us in new directions, that we hadn't anticipated before. We're already learning a ton here, from every corner of the community. As the community grows, and as it expands to welcome lots of diverse views, we hope to learn even more.

I dare say we're even learning from you, John. ;-)

Wow, this is better than I thought it would be. I feel like I got the high bid on the Interview Pierre auction. Good answers!

I think you're probably about right on the 99 percent statistic, which accounts for why we don't have six billion crimes committed every day. On the other hand - as Edwin O. Wilson has argued - that one percent might do so much damage the wishes of the rest of us won't matter. A topic for a later question.

But onward! Here are three more. Sorry they're so long!

• How can any one person dig through all this information and come up with the useful stuff? I know the system is supposed to filter it somehow but it still seems like the Ebay model won't work with ideas, which require thought and not just + and - evaluations. Personally, though I've found much interesting and useful stuff here, I'm bleary-eyed from reading it.
• In a recent posting here, you said that the "second generation of social enterprise" would be "characterised by very tight interdependence between profit and social good. When you can't make a profit without having a positive social impact, you know you're talking about this second generation." What does this mean? How will it work? And why does your social idealism and emphasis on community always proceed with such a consistent emphasis on succeeding in business?
• There's an apparent intellectual approach of some of your funding, like the Openforge and Open Source projects. You seem to be interested in structural change more than ameliorating suffering. Meanwhile Pam seems more interested in, say, the nightmare in the Sudan. I suspect she's the one behind their recent $500,000 bequest to Lutheran World Relief fund, for example. And I right about this? If so, why?

PS. To anyone "lurking," please feel free to jump in. I'd be grateful.

John: You may remember my previous comment about Esquire's importance in helping to expand the reach of Tom Barnett's thought leadership in the article on the Pentagon's New Map.

I refer to it again as a reminder that Esquire could perform a very important role in helping Pierre evangelize his 2nd generation social enterprise views.

The Omidyars have already suggested the type of social enterprise they favor by their investments in Creative Commons and Source Forge, which are examples of the growing zeitgeist of open source collaborative enterprises which deliver enormous "network effects" in providing the spaces and basic tool sets that enable collaborative design and development amongst trusted participants.

Like the Linux example, they can grow to enormous scale and influence - and profit - while focusing on the enhancement of civil society and the engagement of smart people beyond the boundaries of a traditional business enterprise.

In conducting this interview with Pierre, you have evinced a skeptic's view that the O.net is a utopian project - and you have asked for practical examples of how the O.net could help to sponsor and build 2nd generation social enterprises.

I believe that O.net is a brilliant approach to creating and filtering Social Enterprise Deal Flow using the bright minds and purpose-filled intellectual and personal energy contributions of the O.Netizens.

Some of us seek to understand the Omidyar investment approach through participating in these discussions, and I for one expect that a social enterprise design methodlogy will be created and adopted by the O.Netizens to allow the Network to become the incubation engine and diligence test for promising new social enterprises.

Just to show you that building these hybrid for-profit/non-profit enterprises is not far-fetched I invite you to visit an emerging example of a 2nd Generation Social Enterprise where I serve as an advisor.

http://www.manyone.net/homesite/about.html

Something from the DNA of e-Bay is penetrating the social enterprise "movement" and describing this force is a superset of the personal story of the Omidyars and could be the basis for a book. Esquire is where Tom Barnett's book got its first big push, and Esquire could again be the launching platform for writing the story you are just beginning to investigate.

Best of luck to you in your interview and to the Omidyars in their quest for helping all of us create a better world.

Thanks, Dave - I do remember. And I don't mean to come off skeptical. As they say in the academic world, skepticism is a heuristic for asking questions. Or something like that.

John, I know it's late for you, and I just wanted to check in to say that I've got a dinner meeting I'm off to, so I won't be able to get any more comments out to you tonight, probably. I may be able to check in after dinner, but it depends how late it goes. (I'm on Pacific time.)

Thank you, Pierre. It's gracious of you to check in. But I'd be (almost) disappointed if you worked late on my account - I'm so charmed by the legend of your eight-hour days.

Me, I've just spent the last hour futzing with my new Firefox browser - all that open source talk kicking in, I guess.

I'm back. Last night was too late, sorry about that. Hmm, the 8-hour day, interesting. I'd forgotten about that. :-)

I'll include your last message here indented, and intersperse my comments.

John H. Richardson said:

Wow, this is better than I thought it would be. I feel like I got the high bid on the Interview Pierre auction. Good answers!

Pretty funny. Just don't tell me it was damaged during shipment! :-)

I think you're probably about right on the 99 percent statistic, which accounts for why we don't have six billion crimes committed every day. On the other hand - as Edwin O. Wilson has argued - that one percent might do so much damage the wishes of the rest of us won't matter. A topic for a later question.

Yes, that's a real problem, and probably a whole other discussion.

But onward! Here are three more. Sorry they're so long!

• How can any one person dig through all this information and come up with the useful stuff? I know the system is supposed to filter it somehow but it still seems like the Ebay model won't work with ideas, which require thought and not just + and - evaluations. Personally, though I've found much interesting and useful stuff here, I'm bleary-eyed from reading it.

Please keep in mind that this is still a nascent service. We're just getting started, and we're still adding features as we learn. For instance, we just added the feature that suppressed a comment in this very discussion from a user because of his/her reputation. The comment itself seemed fine, but for some reason this user developed a negative reputation, so his comments were being demoted in some way. This morning, I notice that the user's reputation has moved above the -10 threshold, so the comment is completely visible. This is a new idea, and we'll see how well it works in practice. Then we'll fix it and improve upon it.

Ideas are definitely much richer than a simple +/-. But simple rules can often lead to highly complex results. Look at the game of go, with quite possibly the simplest board game rules ever -- but there is nothing richer than a game of go between two expert players, and computers still haven't a chance at beating an even moderately good player.

I think the same will be true here; with enough people looking at all the content, the best will rise to the top: see the What's New tab, or the Discussions tab in any group. And non-helpful content will be hidden away. That said, the current design doesn't help draw attention to individual comments that are of exceptional quality -- just discussions. That's something we need to be looking at to improve, among other things.

At the end of the day, I suspect the simple rating system will be just one tool people use to find interesting content. They may also want to keep track of individuals, maybe the highest-rated people, and see where they're spending their time. And I'm sure we (meaning, the community) will come up with new ideas to make this information-overload problem more manageable.

• In a recent posting here, you said that the "second generation of social enterprise" would be "characterised by very tight interdependence between profit and social good. When you can't make a profit without having a positive social impact, you know you're talking about this second generation." What does this mean? How will it work? And why does your social idealism and emphasis on community always proceed with such a consistent emphasis on succeeding in business?

This is a meaty topic, and I probably won't do it justice here. I happen to think that the most sustainable and robust models we've seen are commercial models. They receive constant feedback from the market, so there's a continuous struggle to improve and adapt, over very short time scales. What I was trying to say in that posting was that there are some business models (like eBay) that can only be successful if they have a positive social impact. In eBay's case, the social impact is giving an individual the experience that they can trust a complete stranger on the Internet, without ever meeting them them face-to-face. This trust is a prerequisite for trade, and hence eBay's entire business.

If you think about eBay in the most generous terms, over 100 million people have learned they can trust a stranger. And I think some of them are taking that lesson offline, into the real world.

So why do I tend to connect social benefit and economic success? Because I think they can be linked, as eBay has shown. Sure, there are some businesses that make a profit on social distress -- I'm not by any means trying to say that business is inherently good. But nor is it inherently bad. I just think we need to work harder to find more business models that are inextricably linked to positive social impact. As we move into a world where people are more connected to one another, in larger numbers, I think more of these models will present themselves.

I also think that altruism, while generally wired in human nature, is less sustainable than the pursuit of self-interest. When a business has a social benefit while rewarding its employees and shareholders, it is more likely to be sustainable than a loss-making business with the same social benefit.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say that the only way to create a social benefit is through a commercial approach -- there are many very difficult problems, including short term crises, that simply aren't suited for a purely commercial approach. And there are many examples of great programs that can unleash a great social benefit very rapidly, if they don't have to worry about making a profit, and if they're given a constant inflow of capital.

• There's an apparent intellectual approach of some of your funding, like the Openforge and Open Source projects. You seem to be interested in structural change more than ameliorating suffering. Meanwhile Pam seems more interested in, say, the nightmare in the Sudan. I suspect she's the one behind their recent $500,000 bequest to Lutheran World Relief fund, for example. And I right about this? If so, why?

We're interested in both. In fact, I think Pam and I make a good team: she is most focused on alleviating suffering, today. And I'm most focused on systemic, structural change, to remove the underlying causes over the long term: generations, possibly. That's not to say that Pam isn't interested in the underlying causes, or that I'm not moved by the suffering we see all around us every day; we both realize a holistic, horizontal approach is necessary.

We also both believe in the power of individuals, empowered and working together to solve the really big problems. We may not see exactly the path these solutions will follow, but our trust in human nature gives us confidence that as more and more people discover their own power to make good things happen, in the aggregate and working together they will inevitably make the world a better place.

Pardon me for interupting, but here are some snippets about trust I've collected over the years:

“One of the most important lessons we learn from an examination of economic life is that a nation’s well-being is conditioned by a single, pervasive cultural characteristic: the level of trust inherent in a society.” (from Fukuyama, Francis, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity)

“People who trust others are all-round good citizens, and those more engaged in community life are both more trusting and trustworthy. Conversely, the civically disengaged believe themselves to be surrounded by miscreants and feel less constrained to be honest themselves. The causal arrows among civic involvement, reciprocity, honesty, and social trust are as tangled as well-tossed spaghetti however; we need to recognize them as they form a coherent syndrome.” (from Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of the American Community, New York, 2000, p. 137)

John Said:

"PS. To anyone "lurking," please feel free to jump in. I'd be grateful."

I just found this discussion, realized the deadline for questions is cut off, but I'd still like to ask some questions Pierre can respectably choose to decline answering. So much of the work I am up to is inspired by my own family, especially the life I would like to create for my two year old Mac and hopefully at least 2-3 more kids...

• What role do your own children play in your long term aspirations? Should they choose to, how would you like to see them become involved in your work?
• What concerns do you have raising children in a world that will know their parents as billionaires and creators of one of the most recognizable companies on a global scale?

To me, something of such a great magnitude as eBay and your goals to disperse your wealth causes us to want to know more about person behind the name or face...

• What can you tell us about your family life? Your children?
• Perhaps a good question for Pam, but what else is there for us to know about the real you? Your personality? Your hobbies? Interests?

John's article will obviously attract a variety of readers. I am the type that really wants to get to the core of who people are aside from wealth, status, recognition, etc. I hope none of you mind me asking questions that strike more of a personal note. I suppose a lot of people would love to know these type of answers...

Cheers!

It's funny, Pierre - as I read your answers, I'm also aware of the process we're attempting. The questions aren't all mine. You have time to consider and rewrite your answers. And we are being observed by others in the network. Even my editor can drop in and have a look. It definitely gives me a feeling of being embedded in a larger context. And there's an aspect of public performance that isn't entirely displeasing. But I lose my familiar lone-samurai approach. I can't go back to my secret writer's cave and gnaw my bones - or rather, your bones - in private. It's going to take a little getting used to.

Meanwhile, here are some more questions:

• George Soros seems to be focussing his recent efforts on getting Bush out of office. I've been told that you and Pam have made contributions to Planned Parenthood, Harry Reid and Tom Daschle, but my impression is that you've mostly avoided going the political route. If so, why?
• Socially beneficial companies seem to be pretty small scale operations compared to "big business." what's to say this isn't all alot of nibbling at the edges of the economy and won't affect systemic change?
• I love the "no guitar heroes" approach to life ... but I don't really believe it. I don't think the eBay community would have kept eBay going without you to set the ideals and sometimes compromise them (charging fees, hiring guys in suits, etc.) And as others have pointed out, you're the man behind the curtain here. You own it. It's named after you. So what's with all this collectivist self-effacement? Aren't you eventually going to have to take charge here too? At what point does the lovely libertarian fishtank turn into a tank 'o' green slime? (This is a warmup for the intrusive personal questions to come, so watch yourself!)

John H. Richardson said:

It's funny, Pierre - as I read your answers, I'm also aware of the process we're attempting. The questions aren't all mine. You have time to consider and rewrite your answers. And we are being observed by others in the network. Even my editor can drop in and have a look. It definitely gives me a feeling of being embedded in a larger context. And there's an aspect of public performance that isn't entirely displeasing. But I lose my familiar lone-samurai approach. I can't go back to my secret writer's cave and gnaw my bones - or rather, your bones - in private. It's going to take a little getting used to.

It's a little weird for me, too. Though I'm pleased my bones are being spared a little gnawing. For now, anyway.

I know others are jumping in with questions and comments, but given the amount of time it takes to put thoughts down on paper (and yes, edit myself a little bit), I'm can't directly address them yet.

Meanwhile, here are some more questions:

• George Soros seems to be focussing his recent efforts on getting Bush out of office. I've been told that you and Pam have made contributions to Planned Parenthood, Harry Reid and Tom Daschle, but my impression is that you've mostly avoided going the political route. If so, why?

Well, I'm still an independent -- not registered to any party. Pam is a Democrat. In the interest of full disclosure, I did endorse General Wesley Clark as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, pretty early on. I'm pretty convinced that we're headed in the wrong direction, both domestically and internationally, but I recognize that some intelligent, well-meaning people disagree. It's been my experience that there are many excellent public servants in Washington, who really are there for the right reasons, from both parties.

Our belief in the power of every individual to make a difference is non-partisan. I don't think any political party can lay exclusive claim to that belief. So being overtly political doesn't really serve our goals: we'll work with people who are genuinely working towards helping more and more people discover their own power to make good things happen, regardless of their party.

• Socially beneficial companies seem to be pretty small scale operations compared to "big business." what's to say this isn't all alot of nibbling at the edges of the economy and won't affect systemic change?

Well, as I've said, I view eBay as socially beneficial, even though it is run as a "big business." The small-scale socially beneficial companies may not be the kind we're talking about in the "second generation," which we just discussed. Or they may be willing to compromise on their business goals, in order to provide a social benefit. Perhaps they purposely limit their ambitions, because they fear they can't be both successful and beneficial. That's the "tyranny of the 'or'," as Collins and Porras wrote in Built to Last. We need to find the "genius of the 'and.'"

• I love the "no guitar heroes" approach to life ... but I don't really believe it. I don't think the eBay community would have kept eBay going without you to set the ideals and sometimes compromise them (charging fees, hiring guys in suits, etc.) And as others have pointed out, you're the man behind the curtain here. You own it. It's named after you. So what's with all this collectivist self-effacement? Aren't you eventually going to have to take charge here too? At what point does the lovely libertarian fishtank turn into a tank 'o' green slime? (This is a warmup for the intrusive personal questions to come, so watch yourself!)

Well, first of all, I don't think we compromised our ideals at eBay. Clearly things have to evolve: a community of 100 million people is no longer a small town, and the gentle admonitions of a grandfatherly mayor encouraging you to treat others the way you want to be treated, may not be enough. But the core values have never changed.

The wonderful thing about eBay is that we developed a set of values early on, and that those values were adopted by the community. I can't claim ownership over those values: they are fundamental human values that I believe we all share. And I couldn't be the only one living those values: if it wasn't for the fact that our community lived those values, eBay would never have succeeded.

Yes, I also believe we made good strategic decisions as managers of eBay, the company. But those decisions were guided by our values; and we were encouraged, supported, and sometimes even admonished into living those values by our community. It couldn't have worked any other way. And it still works that way, even today.

Here, we're also guided by very simple core values. I hope people here will also encourage and support us in living those values. And support and encourage each other, as well. Just as eBay quickly grew into something defined by its community, I think omidyar.net will also be defined by its community, despite our name on the front door. Our common bond will be the values we share. But hopefully we will be diverse and inclusive enough to support a community with a wide range of interests and activities -- maybe even in directions we haven't anticipated.

So, "taking charge" just isn't in the cards here, same as at eBay. We might have to provide some gentle guidance or nudges, over time. But this community's success will be of its own making. You can disagree with me (or disbelieve me), but we really see our role as being in service to the community -- whether it's here on omidyar.net, or in the rest of the world. It's still very early, but I believe this approach will work. We're focused on the process: values, tools, interaction, etc. The results will take care of themselves.

You're so generous with your answers! At your hourly rate, I figure you've given me about fifty million o-bucks so far. Intimidating!

But I press on. Thanks to Jake McKittrick above (and his future children, I-Pod and I-Tunes), I'd like to bring us down to earth a bit.

• Did someone or something inspire you to your very steady and consistent (but not completely normal) way of thinking. Was it someone in your family? Some experience? Some book you read? The Grateful Dead? Friedrich Hayek? Ayn Rand?
• What were your first failures in worklife? What was your most painful mistake in business? What did you learn from them?
• What can you tell us about your family life? Your children? Your personality? Hobbies? Interests?

Feel free to say you don't want to answer. I'm never offended by a straightforward no.

And for the record, only one of these questions is mine!

John, a quick note of clarification on the Lutheran World Relief Fund. That donation was part of a bigger effort. In addition to the $500K to Lutheran World Relief Fund, Pierre and Pam also gave $1 million to Doctors without Borders, $1 million to Oxfam, $1 million to the World Food Program, $1 million to Unicef, and $500K to OCHA.

Pierre said: "but we really see our role as being in service to the community -- whether it's here on omidyar.net, or in the rest of the world."

Pierre and Pam, through their actions in the world,in supporting the O.net, and probably during their stewardship of the evolution of e-Bay, qualify as servamt leaders - a term originated in the 1970's by Robert K Greenleaf - a brief definition of the term can be found at the Greenleaf Institute website http://www.greenleaf.org/

John H. Richardson said:

You're so generous with your answers! At your hourly rate, I figure you've given me about fifty million o-bucks so far. Intimidating!

Yes, I do tend to ramble on, don't I? You haven't seen me in person! :-)

But I press on. Thanks to Jake McKittrick above (and his future children, I-Pod and I-Tunes), I'd like to bring us down to earth a bit.

As a proud Mac owner, I salute your pun!

• Did someone or something inspire you to your very steady and consistent (but not completely normal) way of thinking. Was it someone in your family? Some experience? Some book you read? The Grateful Dead? Friedrich Hayek? Ayn Rand?

So, it's a little difficult to answer a question the premise of which is that I don't think normally. How do I give a normal answer? I guess all I can say is that growing up, I was given a strong sense of self-confidence, and a deep respect for other human beings, and the complexity of their experiences relative to my own.

I can remember one day as a child, when I was in the car on the freeway, realizing and being awed by the fact that each and every car held individuals that were pursuing their own paths in life; and that as much as I believed my own path was unique and special, everyone else probably believed the same about their own; and therefore my own path was not unique: it was one of many. And therefore my own experiences growing up, which I thought were unique, were probably also shared by others.

I've never been very good at recognizing and crediting important influences on my way of thinking, or my point of view. I'm sure there isn't a whole lot that I'm creating completely anew. I tend to absorb and synthesize constantly, so the original sources often get muddied. This is usually fine, but it makes it difficult to provide a good sound-bite answer to questions like this.

• What were your first failures in worklife? What was your most painful mistake in business? What did you learn from them?

When I was just starting professional work in my early 20s, as a software engineer, I think I had a bad combination of personality traits: lots of self-confidence, and a perfectionist attitude towards my work. Combined, I probably came across as an arrogant know-it-all, though of course that was never my intention. I always keep that memory in mind when I run into a 20-year-old who believes they could do a better job as CEO. As it turns out, as I discovered over the years, experience and time on the job actually matter, and make a big difference in leadership.

After several years working on a team, I began to realize that perfectionism wasn't really the best idea: aside from being rather stressful, it wasn't all that effective. It was good to focus on quality, but I rediscovered the lesson from my childhood, and acknowledged that my way of doing things might not be any better than someone else's way; their way might simply be different. On top of that, I realized that the reasons teams work well is that everyone is contributing whatever they are individually suited to contribute, to the larger goal. And no matter what the differences in skill level -- real or perceived -- as a group, they will always outperform a single, perfect sole contributor. In other words, no matter how great you are, you can't do it alone.

From that moment, I always made it a point to work with people who were smarter than me.

As far as mistakes go, I'm sure I've made plenty, and learned quite a bit. But because of the way I absorb and synthesize, I rarely retain the anecdote of the mistake and the lesson learned. One of the first lessons I learned was that as far as running a company goes, the stuff you think is hard usually turns out to be easy; and the stuff you think is easy, usually turns out to be quite hard. I also learned that everybody always has a reason why it can't be done. So the best idea is to just go ahead and do it. If it turns out that in fact, it couldn't be done, you learn a ton in the process, which you can take to the next endeavor. It's the process that matters, not the goal.

• What can you tell us about your family life? Your children? Your personality? Hobbies? Interests?

I'm reminded of one particular anecdote that I've retained: when eBay's first PR person asked me, "What do you want people to know about you, personally?" I replied, "That I like my privacy."

I really do value my private life, as I'm sure you do. And for me, over time, this has become more and more precious. As far as hobbies and interests go, I've got a few, but you'll just have to catch me after a drink or two... online or off! :-)

Actually, that riding-in-the-car anecdote is terrific - very true to life, a small moment of perception that opens up the world. I had similar feelings as a child but mine were more melancholy, a feeling of being lost in the teeming indifferent antheap ...

But enough about me ... what do you think of me?

Joke.

But it wasn't so hard, was it, giving us that personal glimpse? You see, though I have my secrets, I don't so much value my private life. In Esquire, I've written about the death of my father, my mother's cancer diagnosis, and a piece about my wife that caused a bit of trouble Chez Richardson - it was called "Sex With One Woman." I believe that revealing yourself is one of the most important ways to create intimacy ... and dialogue ... and community. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I'm a member of Oprah Nation and proud of it. Related questions follow:

• If a central purpose of the conversations here is to help create community, do you see that happening yet? Could you give some examples? Any notable problems or conflicts you'd care to mention? Have you made any new friends personally?
• Could you talk a little about the staff members running this experiment? What attracted you to them? What are their skills?
• Finally, another IPQ (intrusive personal question). Could you please talk a little about your parents and their influence on you?

"Opposition is true friendship." -- William Blake

A note on the +/- feedback system.

On eBay (where for my sins I have been active for many a year), the feedback system is designed to promote (and in some cases enforce) a specific form of behavior leading to a pre-defined form of behavior -- the same in the case of every buyer and seller (truthful presentation/real bids, and prompt payment/prompt shipment). Works great!

But, in the world of ideas, we get nowhere w/o the opposite: we want new ideas, we want them to be outside the normal understanding of how things ought to go, and we want them to be forcefully expressed and forcefully engaged. Emergent results depend on this.

But, the feedback system here encourages the opposite -- even as I write this I have a slight, nagging concern that someone will respond with a negative feedback point, or (worse) that I'll offend Pierre/Pam and put some future project, for which I might want their support, in doubt. At the same time, these remarks are not personal -- I am able to attract positive feedback easily enough.

It is always the person not invited to the discussion who has the disruptive idea that moves things radically forward. And the notion of a person's feedback falling and this causing his post to disappear... how much more like McCarthyism can something be? Sorry, but I find it a bit chilling.

It is also straightforwardly in conflict w/ your values statement, which says 'every person' -- not 'persons w/ positive feedback'.

Tom, I agree with you that what you really want to do is encourage disruptive, diverse points of view. I guess I would say that I'm hopeful the feedback system will actually draw attention to those points of views, rather than suppressing them.

This is still experimental, here. Up to now, the only people who have suffered from a ton of negative feedback have been the two or three that have arrived on the scene, and without introducing themselves, begun acting in unexpected and surprising ways.

The good news is that you can still read what they post. I strongly believe that except in egregious circumstances, what people have to say should be preserved, even if the majority of the community rates it negatively. Therefore, no Orwellian suppression of inconvenient or unpopular facts.

I found your point about the nagging concern about putting a future project in jeopardy interesting: in that example, posting here is kind of like real life, isn't it? It's normal for people to weigh their words carefully when the perception of the person they're talking to is critical to their own self-interest.

John, let me continue.

Leave it to me to challenge you about the limits to which you would go to talk about your personal life and the challenges you've faced: I should have done more research on what you've written! (By the way, I'm no genius, but I could have told you that with a title like that, an article about your wife was sure to cause problems at home. ;-))

As far as my wife and I, did I ever tell you about the time... actually, we really, really value our privacy, and just aren't comfortable sharing details in public. So, despite your most excellent (and even compelling) riposte, I must attempt to graciously change the subject and avoid the personal questions.

I think Tom's post about the feedback system, as well as many other excellent contributions by others, shows just how well this community is establishing itself. It's still early days, and people are not only getting familiar with how this web site operates, but they're trying to establish norms of conduct within this forum.

We've got a long way to go before we can really call omidyar.net a well-functioning, mature community. But I am so impressed by the effort and dedication of the early adopters here. There are great, though-provoking challenges to our design, and great ideas on how to improve the service. Not only that, there are meaty, substantive discussions taking place -- and they're taking place out there in the open, where anyone can drop in and add their point of view.

I can't tell you how valuable it is to have people who are willing to take the time to tell you what's wrong with a place, or how to improve it to maximize its potential. That's something that no amount of brilliant internal work can replace.

Speaking of staff, I think we've got a great, small and dedicated team on omidyar.net. You've seen Thomas Kriese on the forums, always a great ambassador, I'd say. Matt Conahan has just joined and will be helping out on omidyar.net as well. We've got a small technical team, comprised of myself and Alex Poon. And we're supported internally by top-notch support staff.

Beyond that, we've got the rest of the Omidyar Network staff, who months ago bravely adopted this new way of working together. They come from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, but they share a passion for making the world a better place. Pam and I are grateful for their work: they make us look good. On occasion, when they can dig out from under the work that's burying them, you'll see some of them dropping in on some of the discussions on omidyar.net.

I love working with people from varied and different backgrounds. I think our staff reflects that. I value not just technical expertise in the particular role that someone is in; but I think it's critical to have people who have done many different things in their lives; taken risks and branched out in new directions; and experienced life in different ways.

That diversity of background makes for a very rich working environment. Getting to hear the perspectives on different issues that come not only from expertise, but from life experience, is a wonderful thing.