Tuesday, February 01, 2005
A manifesto
(Note - please read the whole thing before commenting. I'm aware there are flaws in my proposals, and I address the ones I can think of in here.)
If I ever start a company*, this is how I would do it:
One: OSS all the way. Everything would be open-source, from operating systems (meaning Linux) to applications (Mozilla, SharpDevelop, etc). Not only is the software cheap (okay, free) and reliable, but since anyone who could use an environment like that is likely to be a techie themselves, support costs could possibly kept lower. Employees could be trusted to more or less not break their computers and could set up their workstations to their liking, provided a few basic interoperability guidelines were met. Working on a system you can really sink your teeth into and jive with makes things easier for you.
((One-point-five: This isn't really related to company policy, but I think it's a neat idea nonetheless. Workstations would be set up on a Linux Live-CD, all issued from a default stock created to serve company needs. Users would be encouraged to make changes and create custom Live-CD working environments. User documents would be stored on a transparent intranet, while settings and workstation-specific stuff would be on a USB stick-drive. This way, not only can one work from any computer available (and I do mean any) but deployment and worker relocation would be smoother. Just eject the CD, unplug the USB stick and move to another computer.))
Two: Screw business casual. Unless meeting with clients or attending seminars or other functions, dress however you want. Sure, common decency must be held up, but that's no reason not to wear a cool hipster T-shirt you picked up recently, and is there anything really wrong with blue jeans? Comfort is the name of the game.
Three: Total transparency. When I say total, I mean total. Anything created, while still being property of the company, would be freely displayable to the public, likely under a license similar to Creative Commons or GNU GPL/Lesser GPL. The intranet would be seamless with the internet, and anyone could take a look at what's happening and either make comments or suggestions, or even take something we made and run with it. I think this would generate more interest in what's going on, provided projects are sufficiently cool (which they would be, see below). Again, comfort would be increased since there would be no need for silly security measures or needless paranoia - you can't steal what is given out freely. As well, since anyone can make comments or suggestions, this would keep the company on its toes in terms of any ethical conduct, since there would be more than enough busybodies to bring such things to our attention. (That doesn't mean we have to listen to said comments or suggestions, but it might be recommended.)
((Eleventy-seventeen: Non-profit. This is one point that I might be totally out to lunch on, since it rests on my certifiably shaky/non-existent understanding of capitalistic economics. As I understand it, companies distribute money on a input/output basis. Cash is raked in from the sale of product to customers, and dispensed to those needing rewards for their efforts. Employee salaries and maintenance costs are paid and investors and shareholders reimbursed according to their contracts or whatever other legal paper defines that sort of thing. What's left over, assuming you gathered more cash than you need to do all that, is profit and sits in the company's vaults. I don't understand why that's needed, and in my system, doesn't happen. I would find ways to distribute all that profit, whether funnelling it back into the salaries as a bonus, or towards coffers for new projects, or back to the investors, or to charities or other nice folks, or to all of the above. I simply don't understand why an abstract entity needs to hoard money. Maybe this is the way non-profits are supposed to run, or maybe companies already work this way. Maybe everything I know about economics is totally wrong, making this paragraph totally superfluous and false. I don't know, which is why the point is indexed by an imaginary number, but I'm including it for thoroughness.))
While all that is nice, I do have problems with my corporate paradise that I haven't reconciled yet:
One. Where money comes from. See, I get the fact that you need capital to get things going, and I get the fact that you need to sell something in some form or another to keep things going. Sure, I could do everything on a volunteer basis like some sort of hippy-collective, but the larger the projects you do that way, the longer they take, the more problems you hit in management and in short, the more they don't work. Touching on the total transparency thing, everything would be available for free, so one could argue there's nothing to sell. On that however, I disagree. Sure, the software can be copied and passed around for free, so therefore you don't make that the basis of your market. If there is incentive to buy a physical product, ie. by including things like good documentation, high production values, reliable support, etc. I believe that people will want to buy. Give them what they want, they will come. Why this is an issue, is because it all hinges on what is being made/sold, and of that, I have no idea.
Two. Getting investments. All those things I talk about up there are great in my mind. I understand the intentions and "whys" behind them all. As I said in the last point, you need money to make money, and gathering initial capital in just about any business venture is more or less a fancy way of saying "begging". You go around to people with money and ask for some using the promise of giving them more back than they gave you. Unfortunately, said people with the big money, likely gained in the "old" (which means what, 5 years ago? 3? Old indeed.) economy probably won't have a clue, nor care why. Selling all this to people who don't get it will probably be a trick in itself, and one that I haven't the best of plans in dealing with. Perhaps approaching ventures similar in perspective may work, but the investment/VC scene in the OSS domain is a total blank in my mind - I have no idea what's out there, which limits this though to mere speculation.
Three. Keeping our momentum to ourselves. Another problem related to the total transparency I'm big on would be keeping our thoughts to ourselves. If the methods and processes used to make petroleum products were open to the public, one could argue that the threat of another company copying said methods for competition would spur on the development of new methods, causing progress and improvement. Yes, it would stop the threat of monopoly (assuming that what you're making manages to be a runaway success, dominating the industry), since as long as one could get some capital, an identical business could be set up. Yes, it would provide a constant push for innovation and drive. Problem is, having the constant threat of being copied and outdone by someone more capable could sink the company though, which is slightly not good. To solve this, maybe a clause could be included in the license all work gets published under that while open and free for use, one must merely notify us that our ideas are spawning something new. That way, we would have the opportunity to make an offer to join up; we offer our resources in making that new idea work. If the offer is refused, well so be it. Bring it on.
So. Would you want to work at a place like that? A Crowe-topia, if you will? Is there somewhere that operates like this already? (If so, please let me know so I can apply to work there!) I think that assuming I can hire people who believe in my methods, it could work. On the other hand, see anything I said that could never happen? Any outright lies and falsities up there? Comments are open as usual kids, feel free to correct me.
---------------------------------------------
*I am aware of the irony of my proposing something like this. Anyone who knows me well would probably see it as well. If not, you aren't missing anything, so keep reading m'kay?
¶ 10:32 a.m.
(Note - please read the whole thing before commenting. I'm aware there are flaws in my proposals, and I address the ones I can think of in here.)
If I ever start a company*, this is how I would do it:
One: OSS all the way. Everything would be open-source, from operating systems (meaning Linux) to applications (Mozilla, SharpDevelop, etc). Not only is the software cheap (okay, free) and reliable, but since anyone who could use an environment like that is likely to be a techie themselves, support costs could possibly kept lower. Employees could be trusted to more or less not break their computers and could set up their workstations to their liking, provided a few basic interoperability guidelines were met. Working on a system you can really sink your teeth into and jive with makes things easier for you.
((One-point-five: This isn't really related to company policy, but I think it's a neat idea nonetheless. Workstations would be set up on a Linux Live-CD, all issued from a default stock created to serve company needs. Users would be encouraged to make changes and create custom Live-CD working environments. User documents would be stored on a transparent intranet, while settings and workstation-specific stuff would be on a USB stick-drive. This way, not only can one work from any computer available (and I do mean any) but deployment and worker relocation would be smoother. Just eject the CD, unplug the USB stick and move to another computer.))
Two: Screw business casual. Unless meeting with clients or attending seminars or other functions, dress however you want. Sure, common decency must be held up, but that's no reason not to wear a cool hipster T-shirt you picked up recently, and is there anything really wrong with blue jeans? Comfort is the name of the game.
Three: Total transparency. When I say total, I mean total. Anything created, while still being property of the company, would be freely displayable to the public, likely under a license similar to Creative Commons or GNU GPL/Lesser GPL. The intranet would be seamless with the internet, and anyone could take a look at what's happening and either make comments or suggestions, or even take something we made and run with it. I think this would generate more interest in what's going on, provided projects are sufficiently cool (which they would be, see below). Again, comfort would be increased since there would be no need for silly security measures or needless paranoia - you can't steal what is given out freely. As well, since anyone can make comments or suggestions, this would keep the company on its toes in terms of any ethical conduct, since there would be more than enough busybodies to bring such things to our attention. (That doesn't mean we have to listen to said comments or suggestions, but it might be recommended.)
((Eleventy-seventeen: Non-profit. This is one point that I might be totally out to lunch on, since it rests on my certifiably shaky/non-existent understanding of capitalistic economics. As I understand it, companies distribute money on a input/output basis. Cash is raked in from the sale of product to customers, and dispensed to those needing rewards for their efforts. Employee salaries and maintenance costs are paid and investors and shareholders reimbursed according to their contracts or whatever other legal paper defines that sort of thing. What's left over, assuming you gathered more cash than you need to do all that, is profit and sits in the company's vaults. I don't understand why that's needed, and in my system, doesn't happen. I would find ways to distribute all that profit, whether funnelling it back into the salaries as a bonus, or towards coffers for new projects, or back to the investors, or to charities or other nice folks, or to all of the above. I simply don't understand why an abstract entity needs to hoard money. Maybe this is the way non-profits are supposed to run, or maybe companies already work this way. Maybe everything I know about economics is totally wrong, making this paragraph totally superfluous and false. I don't know, which is why the point is indexed by an imaginary number, but I'm including it for thoroughness.))
While all that is nice, I do have problems with my corporate paradise that I haven't reconciled yet:
One. Where money comes from. See, I get the fact that you need capital to get things going, and I get the fact that you need to sell something in some form or another to keep things going. Sure, I could do everything on a volunteer basis like some sort of hippy-collective, but the larger the projects you do that way, the longer they take, the more problems you hit in management and in short, the more they don't work. Touching on the total transparency thing, everything would be available for free, so one could argue there's nothing to sell. On that however, I disagree. Sure, the software can be copied and passed around for free, so therefore you don't make that the basis of your market. If there is incentive to buy a physical product, ie. by including things like good documentation, high production values, reliable support, etc. I believe that people will want to buy. Give them what they want, they will come. Why this is an issue, is because it all hinges on what is being made/sold, and of that, I have no idea.
Two. Getting investments. All those things I talk about up there are great in my mind. I understand the intentions and "whys" behind them all. As I said in the last point, you need money to make money, and gathering initial capital in just about any business venture is more or less a fancy way of saying "begging". You go around to people with money and ask for some using the promise of giving them more back than they gave you. Unfortunately, said people with the big money, likely gained in the "old" (which means what, 5 years ago? 3? Old indeed.) economy probably won't have a clue, nor care why. Selling all this to people who don't get it will probably be a trick in itself, and one that I haven't the best of plans in dealing with. Perhaps approaching ventures similar in perspective may work, but the investment/VC scene in the OSS domain is a total blank in my mind - I have no idea what's out there, which limits this though to mere speculation.
Three. Keeping our momentum to ourselves. Another problem related to the total transparency I'm big on would be keeping our thoughts to ourselves. If the methods and processes used to make petroleum products were open to the public, one could argue that the threat of another company copying said methods for competition would spur on the development of new methods, causing progress and improvement. Yes, it would stop the threat of monopoly (assuming that what you're making manages to be a runaway success, dominating the industry), since as long as one could get some capital, an identical business could be set up. Yes, it would provide a constant push for innovation and drive. Problem is, having the constant threat of being copied and outdone by someone more capable could sink the company though, which is slightly not good. To solve this, maybe a clause could be included in the license all work gets published under that while open and free for use, one must merely notify us that our ideas are spawning something new. That way, we would have the opportunity to make an offer to join up; we offer our resources in making that new idea work. If the offer is refused, well so be it. Bring it on.
So. Would you want to work at a place like that? A Crowe-topia, if you will? Is there somewhere that operates like this already? (If so, please let me know so I can apply to work there!) I think that assuming I can hire people who believe in my methods, it could work. On the other hand, see anything I said that could never happen? Any outright lies and falsities up there? Comments are open as usual kids, feel free to correct me.
---------------------------------------------
*I am aware of the irony of my proposing something like this. Anyone who knows me well would probably see it as well. If not, you aren't missing anything, so keep reading m'kay?
¶ 10:32 a.m.
