Hi, I'm sending out my thoughts on a service Common Channels that I'll
be starting up, and would like to make work with Blue Oxen and other
such groups, for all our advantage, profit, endeavors, projects. It
will be like the "ideafeeds" that I was sending, but would, for example,
include entry pages at the sites of the various participating groups,
and credit for their input, so that there is as much building our
separate brands as possible. I ask for thoughts on how we might make
this work. Andrius, http://www.ms.lt
------------------------------------ (01)
My current priority is to develop a marketing service that I could find
clients for. I think that we have a lot of potential that we could
release by hacking channels for encouraging activity between and within
our various groups. I just purchased the domain www.CommonChannels.com
(plural!) which I will set up for this (a preview at
http://www.ms.lt/cc/ ). My wish is that online groups might receive and
contribute to channels that they care about. I think this interactivity
is already profound, and can be much more so. It depends on social
groundbreakers, hackers, to personally reach out to groups and connect
them. It makes it possible for us to intertwine a low-key deep-regard
marketing from sponsors, I imagine in the form of "open questions" that
they would like us to keep on our minds, and associate them with. (02)
I think of this service as "semi-commercial" in that we can offer it for
money, OR for work done. Here, the service is open support for open
investigation of an open question. We can, and will, offer that same
service to our Investigators, who work openly on their investigations.
Our service is "semi-commercial" in the sense that we take money as a
given part of the "real-world", but we freely offer our service to those
who work for free, and it has meaning in a world without money. I am
intentionally blurring, on our end, the (I think, oppressive)
distinction between commercial and non-commercial. But I also intend to
become more attentive to how this distinction is made by various
entities I have taken for granted, like Yahoo or Google. (03)
Morality is a central matter, always much to stay on top of. I think my
strategy in this jungle is to keep looking for the clearing, try to
follow all the rules put before me. But at the same time, develop my
own vision for what is of vital importance. And not be afraid to hack
at the obstacles. The way to do that, is to go from digital to
analogue, from black and white to the gray-zone. I don't have to fear
the gray if I'm not afraid of the light. If I approach Yahoo and say, I
have broken, and am breaking, your Terms of Service, is it possible to
change the terms? please advise me what to do? what do I owe you? that
opens up slack for me to use my best judgement on their behalf. I have
to think highly of them, and be prepared to accept their judgement. A
precarious situation, but morally sound. When they turn on the light, I
have to be ready to go. So it's vital to keep prefering alternatives,
actively look for them, wish for them. (04)
I read once in the Harvard Business Review about the characteristics of
entrepreneurs, that they have to be willing to do what other people
would not. That rings very true to me. So I ask us, where can we do
good, where other people would not? (05)
I think this CommonChannels is very important. We need to find a way to
co-brand, to get past our separate brands, and allow them to mingle as
equals. I want to set up CommonChannels so that it accomodates all
manner of groups. (06)
My feeling is that we need a common denominator of values. The value of
"caring about thinking" is very helpful here, it is the widest value
that I have ever heard of. It is all-including, self-extending,
self-correcting. It lets us phrase endeavors in terms of their general
purpose, not any particular forms. It places our projects in a
universal perspective. (07)
For this reason, we need to let people choose their own words. One
leader may care about "interconnecting software tools for augmenting
thinking", but another may phrase it quite differently. These slants
matter. The shorter the phrase, the more trouble to know what it means
to say! A way to solve this, I think, is to let leaders name it as they
like, and describe it as they like, and simply use numbers, such as
http://www.commonchannels.com/8/ Each endeavor gets a channel, a
number. If the endeavor drifts a bit, that is fine, even great, it
means its alive. (08)
And we'll need to let the pages for the channel (entry, display, etc.)
be located at the sites of all the many groups, and branded as they
like. Of course, all the items will be in the public domain, by our rules. (09)
Please imagine how you might contribute items, for what kinds of
endeavors, and how you would like that to work, reenforcing your
project, your group, your brand! For examples of items, see the right
hand side of http://www.ms.lt (010)
I hope this will increase the ways that groups and leaders can work
together with each other, and also get sponsorship, at least for sharing
ideas and encouragements. (011)
Andrius (012)
Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
+370 52645950
Vilnius, Lithuania (013)
--
This message is archived at: (014)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FAD73B5.6020808@ms.lt (015)
|