Difference between revisions of "Talk:Makers Local 256"
m (Grammatical fixes) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
First: Define ''Product'' as a marketable outcome of a ''project'' as represented on this site by a project page. Define ''enterprise'' as the voting rights in the direction/marketing of the ''product'' before bringing it to market, and the profit coming back to the makers as a group after ''product'' launch. Keep in mind that the total ''enterprise'' enjoyed by the makers involved might be in the minority if there is other capital being invested. | First: Define ''Product'' as a marketable outcome of a ''project'' as represented on this site by a project page. Define ''enterprise'' as the voting rights in the direction/marketing of the ''product'' before bringing it to market, and the profit coming back to the makers as a group after ''product'' launch. Keep in mind that the total ''enterprise'' enjoyed by the makers involved might be in the minority if there is other capital being invested. | ||
| − | My suggestion: An idea originator, or group of originators, by default owns a certain percentage of the ''enterprise'' of said product, N%. (100-N)% is apportioned to the maker or, more likely, makers who took the idea and created a ''product'' from it. This apportionment would be based on a peer review of documentation (at this point, the wiki) and other evidence of work in an all-hands meeting of the local makers, if it has not been | + | My suggestion: An idea originator, or group of originators, by default owns a certain percentage of the ''enterprise'' of said product, N%. (100-N)% is apportioned to the maker or, more likely, makers who took the idea and created a ''product'' from it. This apportionment would be based on a peer review of documentation (at this point, the wiki) and other evidence of work in an all-hands meeting of the local makers, if it has not been worked out already by the makers involved. ''If'' we incorporate a nonprofit Makers Group, then some small percentage of the ''enterprise'' should go to it, as the facilitator of the making process. |
Notes: | Notes: | ||
| − | *More than likely an idea originator would be the majority '' | + | *More than likely an idea originator would be the majority ''enterprise'' holder for a project unless he just came up with the idea and abandoned it. |
*This will encourage rabid documentation fetishes. All contributions to a project should be signed. | *This will encourage rabid documentation fetishes. All contributions to a project should be signed. | ||
*We may need to come up with some project management features for the wiki. | *We may need to come up with some project management features for the wiki. | ||
Revision as of 14:17, 13 March 2007
I think we need something to communicate with users who are editing on the wiki at the same time, like an AJAX shoutbox in the side or something. There would need to be some indicator showing how many people are logged into the wiki at once though. Another idea is adding a blogging interface to post about new technology and interesting links relative to current or future projects. Discussion breeds new projects and new approaches to existing ones, we know this much from anytime any of us are in the same place. --strages 05:42, 6 March 2007 (CST)
On the topic of idea/product "ownership": Strages and I were IMing today about this. It's an ugly topic to come up in an innovative and creative atmosphere such as is being built here, but one which will come up at some point, guaranteed. Better to iron it out now, I think, than at some point where one of the ideas envisioned shows imminent promise of reaching market.
First: Define Product as a marketable outcome of a project as represented on this site by a project page. Define enterprise as the voting rights in the direction/marketing of the product before bringing it to market, and the profit coming back to the makers as a group after product launch. Keep in mind that the total enterprise enjoyed by the makers involved might be in the minority if there is other capital being invested.
My suggestion: An idea originator, or group of originators, by default owns a certain percentage of the enterprise of said product, N%. (100-N)% is apportioned to the maker or, more likely, makers who took the idea and created a product from it. This apportionment would be based on a peer review of documentation (at this point, the wiki) and other evidence of work in an all-hands meeting of the local makers, if it has not been worked out already by the makers involved. If we incorporate a nonprofit Makers Group, then some small percentage of the enterprise should go to it, as the facilitator of the making process.
Notes:
- More than likely an idea originator would be the majority enterprise holder for a project unless he just came up with the idea and abandoned it.
- This will encourage rabid documentation fetishes. All contributions to a project should be signed.
- We may need to come up with some project management features for the wiki.
- In the nearer term (next couple of years, say), very few if any projects will even come close to the point of needing this process. People not involved in a project would be called on for an all-hands meeting, and that's it.
- There are a whole host of problems and issues this might bring up---I think incorporating as a non-profit might smooth the way and provide some governance in situations, but the non-profit board shouldn't have all the power. I really think peer review is the way to go.
--Korc 11:45, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
