I was planning to post an article this morning about the Semantic Web and Web 3.0 but this gnawed at me as I just ran into these phrases once again. So, I decided to write a quick rant. I’ll post the more serious stuff in a week or two.

Okay, my rant is now officially beginning…

«rant»

I Am Not an Animal

Contrary to the Elephant Man’s insistence, he was indeed an animal. So was his mother. So were all the people who mocked him. So is every human being that has ever lived or is currently living.

People–our species, Homo sapiens–are in the Kingdom Animalia. We are animals just like the birds and squirrels outside my window; just like the butterflies that I enjoy watching in the summer; just like the mosquitos that I don’t enjoy nearly as much as the butterflies; just like the fish I had for dinner last night, which I enjoyed more than the mosquitoes who seem to enjoy me.

Get over it people. We ARE animals. If you think otherwise, then go back to school and take a basic science class.

People = humans = Homo sapiens = animals

animals = {people; fish; flies; gnats; beetles; cats; dogs; mice; lions; aardvarks; sloths; worms; snakes; frogs; turtles; sharks; bees; and many more species}

So, the next time you want to write about the difference between humans and animals, instead think about writing about the difference between people and non-human animals.

Case closed.

Universe in a Vacuum: It’s Chemical Free

We’ve all seen advertisements for chemical free skin-care products, or all “natural” chemical free laundry detergent, or chemical free organic lawn products.

To these amazing claims, I ask, Oh really?

Chemical free. Contains no chemicals. These are idiotic claims that many “natural” products companies use in their marketing copy. (Now, before you think that I’m against natural, organic products–I am not, I use them all the time–please read on.)

To make my point, let’s look at two simple examples of everyday chemicals.

• Water: Yep, it’s a chemical
• Oxygen: it’s one of the 117 (or so) known elements, also called atoms. But guess what? It’s also a chemical just like the other 116 (or so) elements

That’s right. Even the base elements–those funny little guys that comprise the Periodic Table of Elements–are considered chemicals, although they are often referred to as chemical elements. Why do you think it’s called Chemistry Class?

Speaking of water, not only is it a chemical, it is also a molecule composed of two different bonded species of atoms—hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, it is composed of two different chemicals and is therefore often referred to as a chemical substance.

So, when I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I expect to have just purchased something that contains absolutely nothing. No, that’s not sufficient.

NO CHEMICALS are used at any time. Really? Aren't enzymes chemicals?

When I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I demand that it contains absolutely nothing. It better not contain a single atom of anything or I will sue for misleading advertising.

When I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I want a tube, a bottle, a jar, a box whose contents are guaranteed to be absolutely void of any matter whatsoever. It should be a microcosm of the vacuum in deep space.

Of course, deep space is not even a perfect vacuum. The vacuum of deep space is not even chemical free. So, how do these “natural” products companies create a chemical-free product? You have to wonder. It must be magic.

It’s “Natural” and Organic, So It Must Be Good!

Have you noticed that I keep qualifying the word “natural” by putting it in quotes? Why is this?

Well, natural means absolutely nothing special. It simply refers to something that occurs in nature, is naturally occurring, or is produced by natural processes.

Well, plants growing surely must be a natural process; so peppermint oil is natural. Bees building their hives surely must be a natural process; so beeswax must be natural.

What about people–in particular chemists–who create unique chemical substances that are highly toxic to insects? Is that natural? Well, sure.

Since people are animals, we are part of the natural world. Therefore, everything that humans do is part of the natural process and all of our creations can be considered natural. I know that aliens consider us as puny little, natural organic animals messing up the rest of nature.

What? Are you kidding me?

Not at all…Oh, you’re not asking about the aliens, are you.

Natural is not the appropriate word for separating humankind’s activities or creations from the rest of the ecosystem. Instead, manmade, human made, or artificial should be used.

I prefer people remember that they are part of the natural world instead of abstracting themselves from it. That way, they are less likely to get swollen heads and think that they are separate from all the other animals, that they are not part of the ecosystem. (NB: That is why I think that the phrase anthropogenic climate change is brilliant. It keeps humankind in the climate as part of the ecosystem. See my other rant, The Hot Air About Global Climate Change.)

Okay, what about organic products?

Wow, now this is just becoming too long of a rant. But, since you asked.

The phrase “organic” is another co-opted word used by product marketers. Why? Because most chemical substances can be broken down into two categories—organic and inorganic.

If a chemical substance is primarily comprised of carbon and hydrogen atoms, it is usually classified as being organic. Thus, DDT is organic and, by the way, since it is a human creation, it is also natural. But that does not mean it is safe to eat DDT. It is also best classified as being a highly toxic, artificial chemical substance.

How about plant-based chemicals? Surely they must be safer to use than human-made chemicals. Not necessarily. Some plant-based chemical substances are highly toxic to human animals.

How Can This Get Better?

Well yesterday, when I was looking for a healthier alternative to petroleum-based lip balm, I came across this description on a “natural” products company’s website. I just about lost it when I read this:

Our all natural chemical free lip balm… is not tested on animals.

Holy Cow! I got to get my some of that!

The second thought that came to mind is that I actually should avoid that product at all costs. Why? Because when I use it, I will be the first person to have ever tested the product. I will in fact be the company’s guinea pig. I mean, if it has not been tested on animals, then it cannot yet have been tested on any person.

But then I realized that they might actually be telling the truth. Since the product is chemical free, it contains absolutely nothing. So, it cannot be tested on anything—animals, plants, protozoans, fungi, bacteria, inanimate objects. You get the point. There is nothing to test because they are selling a product which has had all the chemicals removed. So, they can’t even test it on us human animals.

It’s Just a Marketing Message

I realize that phrases such as “chemical free” and “not tested on animals” are meant to convey the message that the products are natural, safe to use, and politically correct to purchase because no non-human animals have been forced to use the products. But, let’s be clear. Natural does not imply safe anymore than organic implies edible.

Lead, arsenic, and benzene are all naturally-occurring chemicals that are quite toxic to people. I don’t know about you, but I try to avoid using any of those natural chemicals when washing my hair. Water, a natural essential chemical substance for all life (as far as we know), can even be lethal under certain uses.

Here’s an interesting article about the toxicity of avocados to some non-human animal species. Once again, “natural” does not necessarily connote edible, healthy, or safe.

Finally, the uninformed usage of the word animal occurs in more that just marketing copy. I see it all the time in news reports, popular articles written by scientists, and many times in letters to the editors. Every time I see someone removing humans from the animal zoo of life, it irks me just a little.

Am I being unreasonable? Well, of course I don’t think so.

In our science-illiterate culture, expressions such as “chemical free” and “not tested on animals” simply add to the disconnect between science, nature, and our view of humanity’s place in the world. I think it is inexcusable and irresponsible.

Okay, end of rant.

«/rant»

I bet you are now entirely confused about all natural, organic, chemical-free products that have not been tested on animals. I’m glad I could help.

Disclaimer: This natural rant is chemical free and has not been tested on any animals (other than organic humans). However, a few plants of multiple species were severely masticated as I sat at my computer writing—yummy all natural organic rolled oatmeal with locally-grown organic blueberries, organic raisins, freshly-ground organic flaxseed, and local genotype native, organic pecans. Oh, I also imagine a number of organic-based bacteria lost their natural lives as well.

It is interesting how some people quickly jumped to conclusions and made sweeping assumptions based on a single blog article, or worse yet, blog title. Although the majority of people who have taken the time to comment or tweet about this post have been positive about my efforts, a small minority (across the age spectrum), have been negative, even seemingly offended.

I’ve concluded that this latter group must not have read the post in its entirety. In fact, it is very possible that they got emotionally thrown-off guard by the title and didn’t bother reading the post at all. The other likely scenario is that they only read the first half of the post and found it disagreeable so they did not finish reading the rest.

Either way, it is a shame when people make accusations–are prejudiced–based on a few words. It is an unfortunate fact that some people will judged you on little more than a few words or sentences. They will not take the time to learn more about who you are before rendering an opinion.

Now I have thick skin. When you’ve been through a life-threatening illness, not sure whether you would live another year, you learn what is truly important and are able to filter out most impacts of personal attacks, illogical drivel, and emotionally-charged, incorrect assertions.

Marketing Message

Although the title of my post was somewhat sensational, it did speak directly to the issue of ageism in the VC-funding of web startups. This is a real issue.

But, my article only used that issue to build a bridge to the larger point—that what matters in startup founders in not age, but their experience, skills, and maturity. In fact, near the end of my piece I state this:

Now, I am not an ageist by any stretch of the imagination. So, if you’re an exceptional under-35 year old who is interested in this opportunity, send an email convincing me that you’re the one I should pick. You will still be required to meet all the requirements except age.

So, when it comes to my search for exceptionally-talented startup partners, this post is really not about age. I’ll gladly consider anyone, regardless of their age—although when choosing a founder, the experience-bar must be set higher.

Rash Decisions Are Not Good Decisions

The fact that someone tweeted today calling me “utterly pompous” for my statements in that article, does not surprise me nor upset me. Whenever someone sends a negative tweet about something I’ve said or written, I always engage them in respectful debate. Some will reply, a few simply ignore my tweets. My purpose is to better communicate my original message and learn what in particular set them off.

When I received that tweet this morning, I sent off three, quick tweets encouraging him to read the whole article and explaining that the major point of that piece was that I’m looking for two experienced people with the skills to be founders. I told him that it was really not about age at all.

He eventually sent another tweet back but has not yet recanted his remark. That’s fine. He’s entitled to his opinion. I have big enough shoulders. If I’m ever in need of the services his firm offers, I’ll fully assess the firm’s strengths and weakness. I will not jump to conclusions based on the little interaction that I’ve had with one of its partners.

This experience made me realize another essential quality of a great leader—to be slow to judgement. If you are too quick to judge, then you are likely a person that misses key information that could make a difference to your business’ success. You may be prone to letting emotions influence your judgement too much. Instead of making a rash assumption about a person, project, or opportunity, do your homework. Properly assess the situation so you know as much of the truth as possible before making your decision.

Whereas it is clear that a person who can be classified as a reluctant leader is currently a bad fit for the position, the brunt of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of that person’s immediate superior. Should they have been hired or promoted to project manager in the first place? Did they receive proper guidance and training? Were clear expectations and responsibilities proactively communicated?

Project Manager versus Managing a Project

In smaller firms, a person who is called a project manager may actually be a single person working on a single project. In that case, whereas they are managing a project, they are not truly a project manager. Project mangers usually oversee more than one project at a time and have a team of people whom they lead.

When a company’s backlog grows large enough, it is crucial to appoint a few, results-oriented project managers. Each project manager leads their own team of people. Each project team is tasked with handling a number of the firm’s overall projects in the backlog. The project manager will delegate various chunks of a project’s workload to the team, only keeping a small portion of the project work to his or herself.

Signs of a Reluctant Leader

To me, one of the telltale signs of a reluctant leader is that they would rather be doing the “real” project work and not that “other stuff”. How is that desire communicated? In different ways, but often like this.

When sitting in a meeting discussing a project issue, that project manager seems uncomfortable, maybe even frequently looking at their watch. They finally get the guts to say, “I need to get to work on the project,” or “can we end this discussion because I have to get back to work.”

It is not uncommon for reluctant leaders to assume that all the other duties of a project manager are subordinated to the project work itself. What they fail to realize is that successful project managers have many responsibilities that must equally be performed. Their share of an overall project’s work is just one of many duties.

Successful Project Managers

Successful project managers need to be proficient multitaskers. They need to accept as well as give constructive feedback; proactively communicate with clients and employees; build motivated, results-oriented project teams; sell their vision to their team, to clients, and to recruits; have a passion for leadership; and derive a good portion of their energy from coaching team members and helping each member reach their potential.

In addition to these basic requirements, successful project managers need to manage project chargeability (if measured), organize and lead team meetings, and oversee their share of an organization’s strategic plan. They also need to be results oriented, handle difficult employee issues, and oversee project QA/QC.

A project manager needs to respond in a timely fashion to all team-member inquires—even if it is uncomfortable to them based on his or her communication style. It is imperative that project managers provide clear guidance and direction, effectively delegate the work load, and, finally, perform their share of the project work—what reluctant leaders call the “real” project work.

What Makes a Project In Itself Successful?

Well, that depends on the overall goals for a given project. But a general definition is as follows: hitting the profitability goal, completing the project on time and on budget, and achieving more than satisfactory results for all parties.

In the end, it is up to a project manager’s superior to hold them accountable for project successes and failures. By doing so, it increases the success rate of future projects and can help mold a reluctant leader into a successful project manager.

Since I am not hiring employees, I am not breaking anti-discrimination laws. I am not making job offers. I am searching for business partners with whom to start a business. So, I can use whatever criteria I want in selecting my startup partners.

In the days that followed that post, Dave brought up more issues of ageism—in particular venture funding in the realm of tech startups. On Wednesday, January 13, 2009, Dave tweeted this quote, taken from an article about Douglas Leone, a partner at Sequoia Capital:

“Sequoia focuses on younger entrepreneurs because people over 30 aren’t innovative.” http://r2.ly/red7

Wow! I guess Pablo Picasso, Richard Feynman, Steve Jobs, James Cameron, and hundreds of thousand of other post-30 innovators, never realized that their creativity and innovative spirits had dried up once they hit 30. Shame on them. They all should have been sent to the Soylent Corporation’s processing plant once they hit 30-years old.

If you read the article linked to in the tweet, you’ll get the full picture of what was being said. But the point is, that when it comes to web startups, especially those in the social media space, ageism is an issue.

( N.B. If you have made it this far in the article and your blood is beginning to boil, read this newer post for a sneak peek at the message behind the headline.)

Fifty is the New Forty; Thirty is the New Twenty

So, why am I looking for founding partners 35-plus years of age?

In my two previous jobs, I managed teams of people; I managed managers who managed teams of people. It was a rare exception when I found someone under the age of 30 who was sufficiently focused, task-oriented, dependable, experienced, and knew what they wanted. When I did find someone like that, I knew that I had a potential project manager and someone who might be able to be mentored to become a possible future executive.

Now that does not imply that most people over the age of 30 have what it takes to manage projects, to lead a team of people, to start a company. Most of them do not. It is simply that my empirical evidence convinced me, when it came to a professional life, most people under the age of 30 still had some growing up to do—and some of those had a long ways to go.

All under-30, professional-level employees have fewer than 10 years of work experience. Most are still very green and have much to learn about work ethos, teamwork, project management, and leadership. The other big issue is that many under-30 employees have yet to perfect an effective, proactive communication style. Finally, experience comes with discipline, hard work, learning from mistakes, and age. And experience is more valuable than raw, young talent in my book.

Don’t get me wrong. Young employees are important to a healthy, vibrant business. But a company full of only young employees is a company that is most likely inefficient and prone at making mistakes that a business with a diverse, well-seasoned workforce would never make. This applies to old firms as well as new startups.

The Company, The Opportunity

My startup is in the Publishing 2.0 space. That is all I will say for now.

I have an detailed concept paper describing the underlying vision and functionality. It is not a business plan. At this stage in a startup’s life, business plans are not necessary. If you don’t understand that statement, or understand why, then this opportunity is not for you.

You must know the differences between working at a startup and working for a small business. Whereas all startups are (usually) considered small businesses, very few small businesses are startups. If you do not clearly understand the differences, then this opportunity is not for you.

Each founder is required to provide their own hardware and software. As we will be using a number of Open Source tools for designing, coding, implementing, managing, and running the platform, the need for proprietary software should be limited.

The earliest stages of this startup will be self-funded. It should not require much initial infusion of capital beyond what is needed for hosting and membership in a few select collaborative services. I plan to run a very lean startup. The mid-term goal is to bootstrap the startup, thereby not requiring any angel or venture funding. However, I am not opposed to either if it makes sense down the road.

As this is a startup with zero outside investment and will initially have zero cash flow, founders will not receive any salary or benefits at first. You must be able to meet adequately your personal financial responsibilities and have a sufficient savings cushion to live in this way for at least 6 to 12 months. If that is not possible, if that concerns you, then this opportunity is not for you.

Founders will be owners of the company. Percent ownership will be negotiated with me on an individual basis. Stock options will also be made available.

Our company will strive to determine as quickly as possible the right fit of functionality and service for our intended target demographic. We will do this through analyzing metrics and customer development data obtained over a series of incremental launches (iterations of our platform). The initial goal will be to get a minimally viable service built as quickly as possible so that we can begin this process. We’ll then scale up our platform and service, leveraging our learned intelligence.

What I’m Seeking

In particular, I’m looking to create an energetic team that will function as generalist. We will build the initial, working technology platform, and create the business foundation.

Whereas each member of our team will have a specific, unique skill set that complements the overall startup process, there will be necessary overlap in the area of coding knowledge. This means that each team member must have sufficient Web coding experience, although only one of us truly needs to be an expert-level developer.

In the earliest stages of a Web-based startup, generalists often perform better than specialists. But, as we begin to successfully acquire members and bootstrap the business, we will hire (additional) specialists.

Here are the basic requirements (not listed in any particular order of importance):

Required of all Founders

• Must be 35-plus years of age
• High energy, positive personality
• A killer work ethic (days will be long)
• Ability to work independently
• Adept at creative problem solving
• Proven creative, innovative, independent thinking
• Ability to work initially for zero salary or benefits (this could last 6 or more months)
• Sufficient comfort level with back-end PHP coding and front-end design
• Project management experience
• Must live in the contiguous United States—for travel purposes
• Must be a citizen of the United States—for legal purposes
• Must have a computer with a video camera and high-speed Internet access
• Thrive in taking measured risks
• A healthy savings from which you can survive off of for at least 12 months
• Respectful, proactive communication style
• Easy to communicate with and a good, active listener
• Understanding that there are no guarantees of success
• Must be willing to travel to meet in person a few times in the first 6 months
• You cannot be in arrears with local, state, or federal tax institutions
• You cannot be a defendant in any pending or active lawsuit
• Founders will share corporate risk and liability
• Founders will sign shareholders’ agreement
• Must be results-oriented, focused, tenacious, and driven

More Specific Requirements—Coder, lead-developer

• At least one coder with significant experience in OOP MVC Python-based frameworks (PHP considered as well)
• Experience and knowledge of DB design theory and practice—ERDs, normalization, sharding, etc.
• Experience with PostgreSQL
• Experience with Web security
• Experience with agile development

More Specific Requirements—Designer

• CSS and HTML guru
• Ability to resolve browser-specific rendering issues
• Keen eye for clean, uncluttered, Web-2.0 style design
• A stickler for designs that validate
• User-friendly UI/UX maven

Not Required but a Plus (one or more)

• Previous startup experience as a founder
• Previous early-stage startup experience as an employee
• Extensive, high-level contacts in the New York book publishing Industry
• Understanding of Semantic Web and experience with semantic technologies
• Past P&L responsibility
• Previous position as CTO
• Law or MBA degree
• You are a Mac person

Not An Issue

• Married/unmarried with kids
• Desire not to relocate
• Desire to get some sleep each night
• It’s okay if you’re a PC person

I spent years in the PC world designing custom database solutions for big companies, I now prefer Macs. In fact, I have three Macs that I use for development. I no longer own a PC—which I have found to be a nice relief.

Now, I am not an ageist by any stretch of the imagination. So, if you’re an exceptional under-35 year old who is interested in this opportunity, send an email convincing me that you’re the one I should pick. You will still be required to meet all the requirements except age.

If Interested, Here’s What you Need to Know and Do

If you are not a highly-motivated, creative, driven, risk-tolerant, tenacious, tireless worker, then this opportunity is not for you.

This is not a job posting. It is a potential opportunity to become a startup founder.

If you are interested in being considered for a slot as one of three founders, ping me here no later than February 6, 2009.

In the body of your (brief) email tell me why this opportunity intrigues you and what experience and skills you bring to the table. Please include a link to your “About Me” page on your website (I prefer that over a digital resume). Include your Twitter and LinkedIn usernames. Finally, include your Skype or iChat contact details so that, if I think it desirable, we can have a video conference.

I will seriously review each potential candidate and make a short list of those with whom I wish to have a video conference. I retain the right to make the final decision on selection of partners. I do not guarantee that I will select any of the candidates who apply. I will not add another founder until I’ve found the right fit.