IGNITER

By tarotastic (tjt195 on flickr)

I’ve been experimenting with peer-producing the first for-profit property coming out of the social venture commons. So far I’m finding once again that there is no better way to learn than to try doing it.

So what’s different about bringing ‘peer-producion’ into the mix? Well so far the difference I’ve most experienced is the degree to which I’m compelled to share what I’m working on at this early stage. It’s not what I’m used to but it is getting more people involved and having a definite impact on how the idea forms and how quickly it becomes reality.

It also brings up the question of how to share equity in the early stages which in my experience is best saved for those who 1) make a meaningful impact on core concept and 2) are going to be part of the team that will get it through the founding phase and into the growth phase.

The conversations around this from one side are around how do we distribute equity fairly using some form of measure as a baseline (e.g. hours in) and on the other side… non-existent (e.g. “can’t talk… building”). For me it’s my inclination to let it ride until we get a crystallization event – which will be in Q1 of 2009 and then take stock of where we are at and work it out in conversation. Logically I’d like a formulaic approach but nothing’s ‘felt’ like it would work yet.

So what seems to be tested by bringing in ‘peer-production‘ into a for-profit startup are:

1. blurring the edges of organization (permeability)
2. allocating parcipation rights to future wealth (distribution)

I think this might get easier as the venture gains momentum, size, and value because the value of each individual contribution will be smaller than the value of whole. I’m not willing to bet on that yet though – as that may simply be the lure of convention and I’m sure there will be host of other challenges.

It’s an interesting journey and would love to hear other thoughts/examples/discussion. Fire away in the comments or feel free to ping me directly.

Things have been moving quickly in the last few weeks and I’m happy to say that we’re in development on the Social Venture Commons. I’ve created a more descriptive presentation below and have also included a brief primer on peer production of organizations (a quick snapshot of the #hohoto holiday party in Toronto).

I’m working on initial partnerships for the commons and am getting ready to reach out for seed investment for one of the for-profit properties (VenTwits.com).

In the spirit of peer-producing this as we go below are some specific items we’d love to have taken up. Just post in the comments below or ping me directly.

• Identity design
• Interface design
• Research on venture media and group collaboration property acquisitions

Image by abdallahh via Flickr

My interest in politics and democracy hit record levels recently. November was hope inspired with the victory of the Obama movement and then by a revolt in the House of Commons in Canada. The Governor General‘s decision to prorogue sparked a visceral anger unlike any I’ve experienced in a long time. To me it was a technically legitimate assault on the core of our democracy – blatantly ignoring the voice of the people that we voted to represent us – the members of the House.

The machinations since then with the Liberals choosing to go with Ignatieff represented the continuation of the assault and a completely missed opportunity. I see the assault now as being a political culture that is interested primarily in partisan power and division with our democracy being but a set of rules to have to operate by. The spirit of democracy is quite the opposite.

Imagine for a minute if the Liberals would have instead organized an open leadership vote among all members. What would have happened? They would have announced it – and everyone seeking to have input into the decision (everyone interested in voting for the person to challenge Harper) would have been drawn to join the liberal party simply for that priviledge. And applying a little Obama strategy at the same time by allowing people to financially contribute to the cause (the Liberal Party) would have seen contributions rise dramatically. What better way is there for the disaffected to get involved right now? I can only imagine what that could have done to change the buy-in of the people in this.

As we stand now I fully expect the Liberals to balk at the Coalition and return to making this a Liberal vs. Conservative battle. Ignatieff may well be the right leader for that and if they execute well they just might win the next election. And I would vote strategically again to try and make that happen.

But that’s exactly the problem. I’m playing political games rather than debating the merits of policies and programs.

We need to change politics in Canada. Some things that would contribute to doing that:

• Parliamentary Democracy 101 (commoncraft style)
• Political Culture exposes (creative examples of our politicians spouting lies and mistruths about our democratic system, fearmongering, and divisive, power hungry tactics)
• The Coalition Movement (a movement supporting the values, strengths, and benefits of coalitions in our democratic system)
• Electoral Reform (introducing Mixed Member Proportional Representation)

It’s painfully clear that none of these things will happen from within the system. That’s not surprising. I do think there is hope though – and that’s through a revival of civic engagement enabled by the tools of the web and our world-class creative communities.  Already there are initiatives like FairVote Canada and ChangeGov.ca. Those are just a couple of many (if you know one pop it in the comments). We have some of the world’s leading experts in online community building, activism, creative content, journalism, and all other things web and civic.

It’s time to step up – we need them – we need everyone – we need you. I am finding my way to do my part… and for the love of Canada, I hope you do to.