I think the important thing is just to be open about all of it. Your point about refocussing the work on the communities in question is right on. The way I see it there are at least two parts of the work for each community. There is the underlying currency/flow services and the plugin code, and there are the web-appications that drive them.

I don't even know if the communities in question have software in mind or have made any choices. EFN is in the process of committing to, designing and implementing a set of tools for supporting all sorts of communities, and part of our desire is to have the currency APIs and tools available for integrating with that work.

In my view it is fine for this round of funding to just go to deliverables from you in support of this class of use. It isn't that much money and the rest of the work can and should go for other funding. Mayby one of the two current projects is more focussed on the application level (I think that would be Linda's intent for the Geeks proposal and I would suppor that).

There is a lot more work that has to be done on the design/strategy level to even know what the next steps are.

Gerry and I both voted on the geeks proposal so I think you should too. We just don't have to roll your's back. :-D

Arthur, I know how you are feeling and I almost resent that people have made you feel this way. The geeks proposal is from a real need for the entire Commons. It's not even just a need for the groups listed.

If a collaborative community like this can not see the desparate need for this tool then there is no hope that anyone will ever fund it and we can sit back and wait until someone who has the passion and the spare time and money can do it. Might happen in my lifetime..might not. Meanwhile collaborative communities that might make good things happen will struggle and in many cases die or not even get off the ground.

Somewhat unrelated to this, I have to say that considering the nature of this community, I was suprised when the teams formed, that most of them ran outside the community to find good causes. Lots of good causes they found, but many are so main stream that the $1,000 that they might get from this funding won't even be noticed. And I wonder what $1,000 would do for many of the organizations and projects worked on in this community.

I was glad to see some of those lifted up at the last moment.

Anyhow, vote away...vote early, vote often but always know where your vote is :-)(for/against/for/against....oops FOR)

>>Should one or both of these projects withdraw? (Ted already has. And I can't decide this for them, but I'm sure they'd appreciate the feedback if that's the overwhelming opinion.) <<

Currently there are 10 projects that represent the entire $50,000 in funding. (and I'll bet you lunch all 10 will not get the poll/vote completed and ready for prime time by this Sunday midnight) So there are no real issues of "scarcity" here and I'd say leave both projects in the mix. The only issues of scarcity will be when there are less funds available in a round two, and perhaps even more teams competing for what will be less funds.

>>What would help re-focus the dialogue and impact assessment on the communities being served?<<

I think the more members see what the outcome of each thing is, the more comfortable all become in dual projects.

>>Should I feel free to posie posts/threads/workspaces?<<

Absolutely, to show your support for their support of those projects. Then again, if you supported other proposals in the mix, it would be nice to see your toss some posies there as well.

>>Should I vote?<<

Absolutely... and a yes vote to boot ;-)

>>How is it that I find myself in a position of looking like I'm gaming the system to get as much funding as possible, when I didn't want to participate in it because of my concerns about this sort of thing happening?<<

I don’t think anyone (with common sense) is going to think you're gaming the system. You're a trusted and valued community member here with a great reputation.

Now. What ON might need to watch for in the future is orgs/people who do want to game. Needless to say, a well organized NPO could get 7 teams of 5 and get a pretty quick series of seven 5K donations...though I suspect the community might come out to vote no should that occur.

Ths big thing for everyone at this stage...is will 30 people take the time to vote? We'll see.

Gerry, I'd love to see these tools become available for groups like EFN as soon as possible. Maybe you can tell me more about what your system needs/goals are in Chicago.

Linda, I suspect people moved the focus toward outside projects to avoid some of the divisive infighting that occurred in the last round of funding. So far, I'm very happy to not have seen anything like that in this round.

Mark, thanks for the feedback. (BTW, I have posied other posts & threads and will continue to.) Yeah, I think if O.net were to have a predictable funding cycle structure like this it would start to get gamed. Maybe part of the effective strategy to prevent that is to be unpredictable.

Just to make it clear: Arthur did not ask us to form a team or to ask his company to do the work. It just looks like the software that Geek Gene is building will be the best way to achieve what we want to achieve with MBD.

Also, I would like to Arthur participate fully in the conversation. I know that Arthur, like the rest of us involved in Onet as far as I can tell, is motivated by doing whatever needs to be done that have the world work for everyone. Its not that he is neglecting his own self-interest, but rather that he gets that a world that works is what is in his self-interest. We all live on the planet, and we will all benefit by having it work. So I would like to see all of us participate in the conversation.

Aren't synergies great? Same thing from our end, we just know that Geek Gene is furthest along in creating this software component, and this is an essential component in The World We Want.

Arthur, I hear you. I felt conflicted about this process because the people I most want to support, are exactly the people I have become most involved with to the point of financial connection. Thus how can I champion their work without self-interest appearing in the picture. I don't care so much about how I will benefit, but if I supported these projects I would benefit. So, I didn't nominate my projects. :-)

However, you didn't nominate your projects either. For you, it is a matter of people coming to you for what you offer. I think you should speak from your knowledge about these things. Within several of the funding groups there has been encouragement for those being funded to participate here. I think as a community member and as a potential recipient (indirectly or directly) you have a chance and perhaps even a responsibility to speak here in relation to what you do and can provide, what you think of the process, and be transparent as much as you can.

I know you, of all people, can find a way to have integrity here. How can I support you in having that integrity?

Please give points, feedback, comments and votes.

Arthur, I appreciate your self-awareness and your willingness to share your inner conflict(s) publicly.

I think your approach to be as open and transparent about what you see as potential conflicts (be they real or not) is the better part of valor. If you feel uncomfortable giving anonymous positive (or negative) feedback, you may need to either give 5 points (thus, revealing your name) or none at all.

For context, when I think of times in the past when I've personally felt burned by what I thought a conflict of interest, it was always because of the lack of disclosure before I had to make a decision.

Since you're revealing your interests before voting decisions are made, I think you're greatly reducing the chance that someone would feel burned by a "surprise" conflict of interest.

Arthur,

• Should one or both of these projects withdraw? (Ted already has. And I can't decide this for them, but I'm sure they'd appreciate the feedback if that's the overwhelming opinion.)

Only if they can't meet the requirements of the polling horizon. It seems to me they are on track. So ... no.

• What would help re-focus the dialogue and impact assessment on the communities being served?

Do the team members feel the need to "re-focus the dialogue"? I'd only suggest a refocus if you felt you/your org were being over extended.

• Should I feel free to posie posts/threads/workspaces?

Absolutely! You're a citzen of O.net.

• Should I vote?

With abandon!!!

• How is it that I find myself in a position of looking like I'm gaming the system to get as much funding as possible, when I didn't want to participate in it because of my concerns about this sort of thing happening?

I'll refer you Thomas' comment above. I think this thread and your conduct is entirely consistent with my enjoyment of your O.net persona.

As a potential beneficiary and an O.netizen, if you were mute I would be dis-inclined to vote for either of the proposals.

I appreciate everybody's feedback. I figured I should get this dialogue out into the open so that I wasn't just making up problems if they didn't exist, but I also wanted to know if there were indeed issues that needed addressing.

I have voted on a couple of projects and posied up some posts and threads. And will chime in as appropriate if I have time while at this conference.

Thanks All!

Excellent topic, Arthur. I agree with all voices above that by being open and honest, all is well. Some of the outside o/net proposals are being talked about and voted on by the potential recipients because they were invited here to take part in the discussion and comment on their initiatives. I find is completely acceptable that they vote in their own self-interest and I feel the same way about you. Keep up the good work!

Clever idea funding 5 groups and bringing in at least 5 new votes. Gets you 20% there. Me? Not so clever....even took people I knew would vote yes on the proposal for team members. Duh.. Guess you all understand I am not a gamer?

Arthur, your honesty, willingness to come before the community to discuss possible conflicts of interest, and openness in accepting community opinions -- these pretty much assure that you're okay. One of the hardest things for me to deal with is entitlement, and when I hear even the faintest trace of it in a person's voice, the hairs on my neck stand up. You ain't coming with that spirit of entitlement, so you've got my vote.

this is a very cool discussion. Thanks to all for the views shared.

Arthur Brock said:

I need some feedback from y'all.

• Should one or both of these projects withdraw? (Ted already has. And I can't decide this for them, but I'm sure they'd appreciate the feedback if that's the overwhelming opinion.)

Interesting question: what a funding recipient refuses the support?

• What would help re-focus the dialogue and impact assessment on the communities being served?

Just start discussions on what's important to you. If other people care about it, they'll probably show up. I think what's more interesting is the "I don't care" case.

• Should I feel free to posie posts/threads/workspaces?

Yes: feel free (it's a wonderful feeling!)

• Should I vote?

Um, I don't care.

• How is it that I find myself in a position of looking like I'm gaming the system to get as much funding as possible, when I didn't want to participate in it because of my concerns about this sort of thing happening?

I have never understood "gaming the system", really. It's almost like an accusation that Martin Luther King knew how to speak English -- it just doesn't make any sense to me. (does that help?)

Any words of wisdom?

I think your projects are wonderful -- even though philosophically I am more aligned to supporting the most distributed system on the Internet: the DNS. Any centralization seems contrary to the way the Internet is supposed to work. (I think Barlow said that)

I'll let you be in my dream if you let me be in yours. (I think Bob Dylan said that)

;D nmw