my sense, thomas, of this idea that o/net is all talk and no action, is that this is true if the action people are defining is "support my project." on the other hand, it does appear that many people are finding ways to take action in new arenas, on issues they hadn't previously been connected to or discovering new tools. what is perhaps frustrating a good number of people is that there is never enough to go around and so a) action takes longer than people would like and they can't wait it out b) workload isn't shared so people wonder why they are doing things through o.net anyway, and c) ON itself is gun shy at supporting or promoting individuals or projects despite the appetite for such a role ...

so i think all of these factors roll into a perception of all talk and no action. if ON is an effort to revolutionize philanthopy, seems things need to get ratcheted a notch or the risks of flailing, misfires, and burnouts remains high. a good place to start will be rethinking the mission:

there are lots of places to discover one's ability to make good things happen. what makes o/net different than its relative financial freedom to exist in perpetuity? How does ON define succes and how will it measure this? I am guessing there is a disconnect between how Omidyar Network gives funds and what happens in the online community. How about tightening the sails and creating some transparent lines of communication? Let's raise the veil between the "public face" of the Network and the Network's giving ;)

Thanks for blogging from the conference -- i look forward to reading lots!