Life Is About Complex Adaptive Systems

What was the impetus behind this aha moment? In 1995 I read the first edition of the book, Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos by Roger Lewin. It changed my perspective on humanity’s relationship to the ecosphere.

This book was my introduction to complexity theory and the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs). In brief, a CAS is a network of self-similar adaptive agents. These agents operate as a supra-entity, as a collective. Each individual agent interacts and communicates with the others in a dynamic way. A CAS’s overall behavior is shaped, altered, and dependent on the experiences of each individual agent and that of the collective as a whole.

Before reading this book, I had an innate sense of the interconnectedness of humankind with Earth’s ecosystem services. After all, prior to receiving my MBA, I majored in ecology (I also majored in molecular microbiology). But the notion of CASs opened up a more technological understanding of this interconnectedness and made me realize that economies cannot thrive in the longterm without full integration into the ecosphere.

Economies As Malfunctioning CASs

Economies depend upon raw materials that are processed to create and exchange value of some form or fashion. The raw materials range from basic materials such as natural resources to higher-level materials such as human thought, energy, and action. All along the way, inputs of one type of material are transformed into outputs of another type of material.

Each subsystem within an economy is its own Complex Adaptive System (CAS). In fact, economies operate as nested CASs. Transactions within and between an economy’s CASs ebb and flow across information channels—the outputs and inputs that conjoin the various parts of the overall system.

The set of all economic subsystems is a singular high-level economic CAS, the master CAS in which all other economic system exists. Here we use the singular term “economy” to encompass the global economic engine, the net affect of all subset economies.

In a healthy functioning economic system, the likelihood (probability) of outputs from one Complex Adaptive System being properly received and utilized as inputs to another CAS is high. The issue with today’s economy is that outputs that are deemed of low-value (have limited utility in being processed into new outputs) are usually classified as waste products and expunged from the system.

Another way of stating this is that waste products are not perceived by the economy as worthwhile inputs for any other process. The terms byproduct and waste are often used interchangeably to differentiate what is considered low-value materials from that which is considered useful output.

The Economy Has Become Malignant

The economy is not the highest-level Complex Adaptive System. And as much as some people may like to believe, the economy is not the most important CAS either. For purposes of this discussion, we will assume that the highest-level system is the ecosphere—the concatenated, symbiotic network that encompasses the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere. It is the complex web of planet-wide foundational services upon which all life depends.

From an information theory viewpoint, CASs can only have two operating states—they ingest inputs and release outputs. In order for CASs to operate in harmony, in a healthy and symbiotic manner, all inputs and outputs must be processed. In other words, nothing is considered waste. Another CAS exists that can readily accept a given output as its needed input. This is exactly what a properly functioning ecosphere does. There is not a single output that does not act, is not received, as an input into some other CAS at the same or different level.

A malfunctioning economy–such as our current global economy–accepts the existence of some outputs that cannot be reused or repurposed anywhere. The issue that the global economic CAS currently is facing is that some of the waste products expunged by lower-level economic CASs are not readily usable by the ecosphere—or at best are not needed in the quantities that they are currently being produced.

What does this mean? The “waste” generated by a diseased economy might actually not find a CAS at any level that wants or needs it as an input. From this sense, an unhealthy economy acts more like a cancer than a valued collection of tissue. Over time, it provides little value, maybe even harm, to the larger CAS of which it is a part.

Sustainability and Growth Can Be Counter Currents

Economies depend on growth as a key measure of health. As the highest-level CAS, the ecosphere depends on resource sharing and recycling. If one sub-level CAS consumes a disproportionate share of those resources, the higher-level CASs can get out of balance. In other words, growth in one CAS is not necessarily sustainable when it results in other CASs losing resiliency. The notion of economic growth as the only desirable, sustaining measures of health needs to be revisited.

All economic outputs need to be viewed as resources that should and can be utilized by at least one other CAS—whether a subsystem CAS within the economy or a higher-level CAS outside of the economy. By retooling the economy to properly think about its inputs and outputs, this diseased, misbehaving tissue cluster can be reintegrated into the larger CAS.

Shouldn’t we want to truly integrate the economy into the ecosphere? After all, the ecosphere is the higher-level CAS upon which the global economy ultimately depends.

Additional Resources

For more resources on Complex Adaptive Systems, visit the Santa Fe Institute’s site.

Notes

Part of this article was originally posted to a Google Plus post by me as a comment to one of Seb Paquet’s posts. I’ve decided to extract my comment and expand the concept into an article that lives on my blog, under my full control. Why would I do this? See my article, Is Surrogate Blogging via Google Plus a Good Idea?

The Apple boys used Jobs’ parents’ free garage. The Google boys used a friend’s garage for free (initially). HP founders used an unattached garage that was part of the home for which they shared the rent (Dave Packard and his wife lived in the house).

Thus the G+ thread was a discussion about what has replaced real garage spaces as a place where startups should startup. In the post’s comments, a number of apparent startup founders were praising the virtues of co-working spaces, claiming that they are the new startup garage.

I found this statement odd. Bootstrapping founders don’t pay for anything until they absolutely need it. Even if a startup has more money than they know what to do with, wise founders don’t pay for something until it is essential. To me, whatever is the cheapest location option for a startup is the new garage.

The key with the startup-bootstrapping approach is to minimize expenses upfront. Use space for which you are already paying but not using efficiently–your bedroom, dining room, garage, shed, basement, one-room apartment, or dorm room. Or borrow (for free) extra space in your parents’ or friend’s home or apartment. Coffee shops or even libraries might work too but co-working spaces definitely do not. Why spend precious resources when you can get space for free. Once you have an initial product to demo, and you’re beginning to gain traction, it may make sense to look for better facilities.

Renting an expensive place will not make you successful. The “it’s key for networking” mantra is a thinly veiled excuse. Nothing prevents you from networking if you work out of your house. If people only networked with people whom they share the same physical office building, then the world would collapse.

Whether you’re a bootstrapped startup or a well-funded startup, the key is execution on building your prototype, creating your MVP. Don’t foolishly waste cash just to be in a cool place. If you don’t have a founder’s team that can successfully execute the startup’s vision, then the team is flawed. Having the coolest place on earth will not change that. Besides, what can be cooler than starting up in a real garage — especially in the winter!

Note: Before any of my readers get a guilty feeling that I’m talking about you and your startup, relax. I’ve held this view for years and decided to share it after reading the interchange on the aforementioned G+ post. After all, my current startup uses the already-paid-for space in my house and my business partners’ houses. Although there is a fabulous co-working space in a high-tech park less than three miles from my house, I have zero interest in paying for more real estate when I already have real estate that I can use.

I want to address an odd trend–although it’s not yet clear if this actually is a trend. Over the past several months, I’ve heard similar statements from several unrelated Internet startups—the notion that they are not tech startups.

Instead of thinking of themselves as tech startups, they believe they have a higher-calling, claiming to be some flavor of socially-focused company. This may be the result of more and more non-tech-oriented business people forming Internet-based startups, but whatever the cause, in my opinion, it must be nipped in the bud.

Now if I had heard that sentiment from two unrelated parties, I would not think much about it. But hearing that statement from several unrelated parties has made me pause and think.

The Rise of the Data Civilization

In the conclusion of Stephen Wolfram’s excellent article entitled Advance of the Data Civilization: A Timeline, he states that the “systematization of data and knowledge provides core infrastructure for the world.” Technologies have evolved over time, increasing the rate of collection, processing, and dissemination of that data to help turn them into knowledge.

To our globally-connected and insatiably data-hungry community, in my view, the Internet is perhaps the most relevant class of innovation. The Internet is becoming not only the preferred repository of most of our data but also the accelerator of the systematization of data and knowledge that Wolfram discusses. Our civilization is more dependent on data today than ever before—and that dependence will continue to increase.

As humanity races toward the Internet of Things, data–and lots of it (big data)–will be a fundamental supporting sublayer to our everyday lives. The Internet is becoming the platform on which our society, culture, and economy depends. The Internet is an essential partner in much of our current and future innovations. Don’t discount the importance of the Internet and its underlying technologies. Technology is at the core of our society’s future and your smartup’s success.

Technology as Platform, Engine, and Change Agent

All Internet-obligate companies have some type of a vision and mission, usually backed by a set of closely-held ideals that flavor their implementation of that vision. Whatever that vision may be, the fundamental foundation of any smartup is its technological platform. But as you’ll discover in the Layer’s of the Smartup Stack article, the platform does encompass more than just core code technology.

The technological platform though is at the center of, the innermost layer of, the smartup stack. Why is this the case? Because technology is the enabler of the wonderful and fantastic vision your smartup has for the world. Your smartup plans to leverage the power, reach, and socially-transmutational forces of the Internet. To do so requires that you envelope your vision with those technologies that can help bring your vision to fruition.

Whereas it is fabulous that you want to change the world, your Internet-obligate company mandates a technological base. Make sure that base is as strong as it can be. Architect it properly and build it correctly from the start.

Don’t let some branding game cloud your judgement about the key components to your smartup’s future. Remember that your company is at the startup stage. It is not at the growth to maturity stage. You are building the foundation of your vision—a vision that should indisputably be much greater than its technological underpinnings and will be if you do it right. But in order to get to that next stage, you need to come to terms with the seeds of your humble beginnings. There will be plenty of time to expand your focus, to embrace your greater ideals.

Conclusion

It is clear that technology is integral to all Social Web platforms. As smartups are Internet-obligate endeavors, they must be firmly grounded in a tech core. But smartups are greater than the sum of their technologies. The fifth installment of my smartup series lays out the greater ecosystem vision that all startups should strive to embrace. Please read, Building the Social Web: the Layers of the Smartup Stack.

Outside Resources

Here’s a great article by Steve Blank, The Startup Team. The composition of your founding startup team is instrumental to your success — or lack thereof. Technology must be represented on that founding team or you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

As every Trekkie knows, the first Star Trek series was a flop in the eyes of the network executives. The series was canceled into its third session. But it struck a chord with viewers. A letter-writing campaign by fans was responsible for the network re-airing the series and for its eventual syndication. Through syndication and fan-driven Star Trek conventions, the ideals of the series lived on, spawning four more successful series and a growing list of Hollywood movies.

Star Trek struck a chord with viewers for a number of reasons. Through its interracial, intercultural, mixed gender, and mixed species crew, it sent the message that humanity could strive toward a greater ideal, that we would eventually overcome our social, political, and economic conflicts.

The original series (TOS), and the subsequent series in the franchise, also sparked the imaginations of many young children and teenagers, helping them dream about science, technology, and the future. Today there are a number of prominent scientists who have stated that Star Trek was a primary reason they got interested in science and math.

But for the first time in almost two decades, there is not an actively-produced, airing Star Trek series. How can a new generation of viewers get inspired by the ideals and vision of the Trek universe? How should Gene Roddenberry’s vision live on?

To Boldly Go

Whereas there seems to be renewed interest in the Hollywood-side of the Trek franchise, a new Star Trek movie coming out every two or three years is not sufficient to keep fans satiated nor inspire new fans to get interested in math and science. There have been fan-created Trek series going for some time–one of them even attracting the participation of past TOS stars and screenwriters–but these productions cannot pump out the volume of annual episodes required to keep an audience engaged, to keep the vision of Roddenberry alive.

So what is the solution?

I believe that creating a single, new television-based Star Trek series is not in keeping with Gene Roddenberry’s vision. As a futurist, Roddenberry would have been enthralled with the power of today’s Web-based Internet.

Roddenberry would have reached out and embraced the Web, leveraging social media, crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, and cloud-based distribution. He surely would have recognized that with the new production toolkits and distribution channels, multiple teams of independent production companies could simultaneously leverage the power of the Web to expand and explore his vision.

Instead of a single, very-expensive-to-produce, television-based Star Trek series being aired at a time, imagine eight or ten cheaper-to-produce, independently-run Star Trek Web franchises running simultaneously. Imagine the richness and diversity of Roddenberry’s vision blossoming in the frontiers of Web-based media production.

The Next Production Frontier

CBS Studios–the current copyright holder of the television side of the Star Trek franchise–needs to accept the changing face of media production. It needs to honor and respect Gene Roddenberry’s creation and future-focused vision by putting in place a mechanism for the creation of independently-owned and -operated mini Star Trek Production Houses (STPH).

Note: What I’m proposing for the Star Trek franchise can equally apply to the Stargate franchise as well

The overall goal of the STPH program would be to enable small, for-profit production companies to make a living producing new Star Trek series for a world-wide fanbase. The fans would support each production via subscription fees and merchandise purchases. Only those STPH productions that were deemed worthwhile would garner sufficient fan support to continue production. Here’s how the STPH model would work:

1. Getting Started: Each STPH would be pay an initial small licensing fee to CBS Studios for the rights to use the Star Trek name and body of work in a for-profit venture. An initial two-year license would cost a nominal amount—$10k. This would help the fledgling series get established without too much of their precious initial funding going to licensing. The small fee while affordable, is still large enough that only serious production teams would be willing to pay the initial fee.
2. Licensing Fee Escalation: Starting with year three, licensing could switch to being annually renewable with an escalation of the fee to $25k. Year four would see the fee jump to $50k and year five would see the fee capped at a maximum $100k for that year and each subsequent years. By year three, either a series is doing well enough to afford a higher fee or it is ready to shut down. So, whereas the annual fees in years 4 and onward seem steep compared to the first three years, it is reasonable to assume that a successful series will have more than sufficient annual subscription revenue to easily afford these fees. The increased fees are also a thank you to CBS Studios for allowing young production companies to get up and running without a burdensome initial licensing fee.
3. Production Requirements: Part of the licensing agreement would establish minimum production requirements that ensure sufficient quality of production output. However, the minimum production requirements should not be a deal killer; they cannot require too expensive of a production toolset; they cannot require that actors be screen actor guild members nor that gaffers, lighting technicians (etcetera) be union. The Web-based production paradigm is much closer to guerilla, shoebox, garage-level production than Hollywood-level cinematic overkill. Requiring big-budget television, or worse, Hollywoord-level production capabilities does not recognize nor appreciate the agility with which Web-based productions must operate.
4. Production Quality: Whereas costs must be contained, and therefore old-school media production mindsets will not work in the fasted-paced world of Web productions, there are a few essentials to help ensure sufficient production quality. A list of minimum equipment quality, facilities, and production capabilities would be spelled out in the licensing agreement. This list would cover:

   * Cameras
   * Studio space
   * Sets, props, and costumes
   * Scripts
   * Post production quality, such as VFX capabilites
   * Website design and community requirements
   * Episode formatting for Web broadcast

5. Organizational Structure: Each independent STPH must be a chartered for-profit corporate organization. In other words, it has to be a business and run like a business. It cannot be three guys in their garage making a fan flick.
6. Monetization: Each STPH would utilize crowdfunding to fund their series production. This could be done through a combination of funding techniques, but selling annual subscriptions to a series would be the primary revenue source for each STPH.
7. Profit Sharing: Profit sharing of 70/30 (STPH / CBS Studios). CBS Studios would receive a thirty-precent topline subscription revenue share and a thirty-precent net profit share (on all other revenue streams minus subscription revenue) such as sales of merchandise, DVDs, conferences, onset tours, premium Web member fees, etcetera.
8. Need for Profit: Each STPH Webseries’ creative team and production company need to have sufficient motivation and profit opportunities. They need to have the ability to earn a respectable profit to fund future growth and improvements. A thirty-precent profit share with CBS Studios is more than generous and could add up to a respectable bonus revenue stream all for just agreeing to license the Star Trek brand and let others do the rest of the work.
9. Creative Freedom: Whereas CBS Studios would approve each new licensee and the proposed Webseries’ place in the Star Trek Universe (STU), they would not have creative control over a Webseries’ production. The only control they would have is to refuse license renewal at the end of a licensing period or the ability to revoke a license midterm if other contractual obligations have not been met. The license agreement would have to safeguard the original creative team and STPH company so as to prevent license termination for the sole purpose of taking over a popular Webseries (see last bullet point). There would of course be a set of rules that each Webseries would have to follow regarding the expansion of the STU and also a set of production guidelines that should be followed. But Web-based new media projects cannot function under old school, overly ridged, greatly politicized production policies and practices. In the world of new media there is no room for the old school studio executives playing god. There is no room and allowance for script reviews and approval. Web-based cinema is a lean, quick paced production environment. The reason it exists is to get away from the excesses and gross inefficiencies of old school, traditional media. If CBS Studios wants to succeed in the new media Web world, it has to learn the new rules, it has to change its ways of doing business.
10. Copyright: Each STPH webseries would have a joint copyright between CBS Studios and the STPH Webseries production company with all profits shared as agreed upon in the licensing agreement. The copyright and profit sharing would continue after series completion or termination.
11. Communication, Participation, Marketing: Regular communication would occur between each licensed STPH and CBS Studios. This would be facilitated via a special CBS Studio STPH Envoy. CBS Studios would help market each licensed STPH via promotion on StarTrek.com and other outlets.
12. Potential for Television Series: It may make sense for CBS Studios to directly nurture a select few STPH Webseries, providing them with additional funding, and maybe even turning them into full-fledged Star Trek TV series. This would require careful consideration of the impacts to the STPH company (owners, actors, production team, copyright issues, etcetera).

The Web, Star Trek’s Final Frontier?

Why should CBS Studios entertain this proposal? Besides that it is more than likely in keeping with Gene Roddenberry’s vision, it could provide a nice yearly revenue stream.

It’s realistic to project a possible annual income from all licensed STPH Webseries to approach $36m by the fourth year of this program. With ten active, licensed Star Trek webseries each paying $50k per licensing year, that is $500k in licensing fees in year four alone. Year five would double income from licensing to $1m.

The profit sharing arrangement offers the lion’s share of the opportunity. Assuming each STPH Webseries has at a minimum 500k annual subscribers each paying $20 per year for the privilege of seeing the series, that would make a total of $10 million per series times ten series divided by 30 percent. Therefore the shared revenue split would bring in $30m per annum.

Furthermore, I guesstimate that each successful fourth-season webseries would have a minimum additional net revenue stream of $2 million per annum through merchandising and other avenues. This means an additional $6 million per year to CBS Studios. That may not sound like much money to a mega-media company like CBS, but it would be $36 million dollars per year that CBS would not have otherwise.

The real payoff to CBS Studios may be in keeping Roddenberry’s vision alive and bringing it into the future. With possibly a dozen independent mini Star Trek Production Houses producing hundreds of hours of Web-based programming each year, the franchise will be reinvigorated. Future television-based series, merchandizing, and renewed syndication revenue from past television series could lead to a windfall profit for CBS Studios.

As we celebrate Star Trek’s 45th anniversary, let’s keep Gene Roddenberry’s vision alive and boldly go into a new production frontier.

As a Social Web architect and an open source advocate I frequently write, think, and promote the notion and ideals of the Open and Social Web. My work in the areas of user-centric control (identity, privacy, data portability, and rights), federated Social Web models, future-of-money projects, and W3C standards groups has shaped my views presented here.

Soon after publishing my 4-part smartup series (almost a year ago), I began to think about key parts of what has become this article. I’ve had bits and pieces of this article jotted down in various places. Over the past three months, the ideas have coalesced into a cohesive framework. With a recent and lengthy process of helping a potential smartup try to find its foundation, I’ve been motivated to assemble, clarify, and share my views on what I call the layers of the smartup stack.

If you’ve carefully read my previous installments in my smartup series you will have discovered–in part–the message that is expressed here. This next installment in the series seeks to clearly present the framework of the smartup stack.

Smartups are Socially Transformative

Smartups look to operate beyond the stale disruptive technology mantra; the smartup vision is not simply a paradigm shift. Instead, smartups are best described as innovating at the intersection of technical, social, and cultural evolution. As such, well thought-out and executed smartups are revolutionary entities. They are socially transformative ecosystems.

The power that a corps of ecosystem partners can bring to your smartup’s success cannot be emphasized enough.

The layers of the smartup stack embrace the uniqueness of each smartup while recognizing the interconnectedness of the greater community. In this regard, smartup’s do not build software. Smartup’s create ecosystems. Like an ecological food web, your smartup can be viewed as an organism that is linked to and interdependent upon other organisms and system services. This mindset requires a broader view of your smartup’s role in society. A smartup’s ultimate goal is to create greater value than is captured.

No matter the grand vision of a given smartup, all smartups share the same DNA at their foundation. They are tech-reliant, Internet-obligate companies. If you need some convincing of this fact, please see my article, Putting the Tech Back into Social Web.

The Layers of the Smartup Stack

Whereas technology is at the center of the smartup stack, you will see in this article that smartups are greater than the sum of their technologies. As we explore each additional layer of the smartup stack, the focus shifts more and more to the outside. Greater emphasis is placed on the social, economic, and cultural frameworks. This will help integrate your vision into the real world. It will help bridge your metaspace creations with their meatspace participants.

Layers can connote horizontal levels upon which other material is placed or stacked. But in the view presented here, layers are rings that surround and bind to any lower and higher concentric-ring partners.

It is practically impossible to singularly architect and build each of the smartup layers without regard to their immediately contiguous layers. However, I will present each layer as if it were a well-defined and self-sufficient entity. The reality is that at all stages of building out your smartup stack, the interconnections to and interdependencies on other layers (inner and outer) must be carefully explored and considered. This is one reason (among many) why your smartup must have in-house technological expertise from the start.

As mentioned above, smartup’s do not build software, they create ecosystems. They recognize that there is great benefit to being linked to and interdependent upon others in a larger system. As many of the system services are outside of a smartup’s immediate control, a smartup must architect its ecosystem to work in symbiotic harmony with the greater Web community.

To that end, a smartup leverages and relies upon open source tools and open Web standards. As we will discuss in the section about the outermost smartup stack layer, smartups also give back to the Open Web movement in order to embrace an ecosystem approach.

The Inner most Layer: the Technology Platform

As mentioned above, technology is at the very core of every Internet-obligate smartup. The center of the smartup stack, then, is the technology platform. There are four pieces that comprise the technology platform. As previous smartup articles discuss two of these pieces in depth, I will not present much additional detail about them.

Each piece of the tech platform layer relies on Open Source tools and standards where ever possible. Although a smartup creates its own technology in aggregate, it leverages code libraries, tools, and standards to help make the process of building out their platform quick and efficient.

At this stage you will be proportioning your smartup’s time between product iteration (which means more coding), marketing your MVP, and customer development. Although you must find the proper balance between these three activities, the primary focus of this process is on building out your smartup’s foundational technology platform.

Here are the four pieces of the tech platform:

1. Schemaless Backend
2. Semantic Web / LOD Stack
3. Responsive Codebase
4. Modern Web Standards

Schemaless Backend

I’ve written an entire smartup article on the virtues of NOSQL versus SQL, so I will not repeat anything here except to say that some smartups may need to use an RDBMS as well for part of their overall data warehousing needs. The main point is that smartups are big-data players and as such they need to utilize the best technology for modeling, capturing, and managing that data. NOSQL databases are, by and large, the preferred choice.

Semantic Web / LOD Stack

I’ve also written an entire smartup article on the Web of Data. Suffice it to say that Semantic Web technologies, which some prefer to refer to as Linked Data technologies, enable the linking of data and allows for the serendipitous discovery of new connections with other datasets.

Smartups understand the value of and participate in the Web of Data. Smartups realize that data is the unit of exchange on the Web, not documents. Instead of Hyperlinks being the engine of exchange, it is Hyperdata. Data is the energy, the food, exchanged between participants in the Social Web. Semantic Web technologies facilitate the flow of information between “habitats”, between communities.

Responsive Codebase

This is the most generic-sounding piece in the tech platform layer. I will not delve too much into this piece of the tech platform layer as it deserves its own full-length article (perhaps the sixth installment in my smartup series).

There is not one preferred or recommended framework, language construct, or codebase that all smartups use. Different smartups use different code-creating tools. They pick those that they are most comfortable with and that serve their particular tech needs. However, there are some clear trends and, therefore, advice that can be offered to each smartup.

The broadest bit of advice is that Internet-coding technologies are evolving to catch up with and meet the needs of a more data-intensive world. Although a smartup CTO should use tools with which he or she feels comfortable, that does not mean that they can be complacent, that they should not spend time exploring and learning some of the newer options.

For instance, a smartup will choose an object-oriented coding style versus a procedural-coding style. But that does not mean that all smartups have to code in PHP, Python, or Ruby. There are some promising, new, convention-breaking language platforms that are the current rage in the Web dev world. One of these is NodeJS—a highly-scalable, high-concurrency, event-driven framework.

Another major smartup trend that epitomizes the Responsive Codebase mantra is moving as much of the processing away from the server side as possible (Web-1.0 and 2.0s thick-server approach). The focus is on creating what are referred to as fat- or thick-client applications. In other words, the browser or mobile device handles considerable more of the processing, relying a lot less on the server.

Another trend is the use of light-weight code libraries. When properly utilized, they allow a smartup to react more quickly and be nimble in their coding practices. As an example, one light-weight code library that my newest smartup uses is JSON-LD. It brilliantly facilitates cross-piece integration and as such can be categorized as falling into both pieces two and three in the tech platform layer.

A final smartup trend is preferred data formats. According to a recent report, 55 percent of all new APIs have support for JSON and a staggering 20 percent of new APIs support only JSON. This demonstrates the quickly-growing trend of utilizing JSON as a preferred data format (see slides 22 & 23). It also indicates that for data interchange, the reliance on XML is fading fast.

Modern Web Standards

Smartups support, adopt, and utilize Web standards. HTML5 and CSS3 are currently among the two most important Web standards. There are of course other standards, whose utility will vary among smartups, but these two should be utilized by all smartups.

The Second Layer: User-control and Economic Engine

The next layer of the smartup stack contains two sublayers that interconnect via their direct connections with the technology platform. Once again, this illustrates the importance of the technology platform as being a fundamental, foundational layer to all smartups.

These two sublayers are:

1. User-centric Rights & Control
2. Future-looking Economic Engine

User-centric Rights & Control

As I have written much about user-centric control over identity, privacy, usage rights, and data portability in the past, I will gloss over most of the details. If you’re interested in learning more about my viewpoints on these topics, simply search my website.

All smartups believe in and understand the importance of returning as much control over data as possible back to the users. They realize that it not only makes sense from the standpoint of being good social stewards, but also it makes good business sense as well.

With support from the smartup’s tech platform, users have significant power over each piece of data that they contribute, that they generate. Further support for users’ rights and control can be provided through novel, user-friendly legal contracts.

Future-looking Economic Engine

I’ve been interested in future-of-money projects and theories for sometime—particularly in how technology, specifically Internet tech, is leading to a revolution in how value is exchanged. This is why I am a charter member of the newly-announced W3C Web Payments Standards Community Group.

I believe that new micropayment frameworks and economic models are essential to not only the healthy growth and long-term viability of a truly Social Web, but also to our greater global society. The future of money and of economic self reliance rests in the emergent properties of the social-driven superorganism. Centrally-controlled currencies will eventually give rise to decentralized currencies and instead of tightly controlled and regulated markets, self-regulation via distributed command and control processes will become the norm.

Smartups are on the bleeding edge of this economic revolution. Smartups thus play an important part in helping to push new payment frameworks and economic models. They are intimately involved in evolving economic models and understanding the need for a universal payment mechanism for the Web—a mechanism that will facilitate the proliferation of alternative currencies, friction-less payments, crowdfunding, and general value exchange.

One payment framework that my smartup will be leveraging is PaySwarm. It is described as, “an open standard that enables web browsers and web devices to perform micropayments and copyright-aware, peer-to-peer digital media distribution.” I believe that PaySwarm can become one of the central pillars to any smartup’s future-looking economic engine.

The Third Layer: the Smartup Social Engine

This layer integrates with the innermost two layers of the smartup stack. The focus is more on the user interface (UI) and the user experience (UX).

When combined with the first two layers, this layer comprises what can best be described as the Smartup’s Social Engine. It is the internal platform that contains any intellectual property (IP). It is the fully-functioning application that provides the smartup’s unique product and service offering.

Although basic UI/UX considerations were made during the initial MVP testing, proving, and refinement phase, it was a Lean UI and Lean UX process. The Social Engine Layer is where a smartup spends considerable time perfecting its full-blown UI and UX. Issues such as tight integration with the the User-centric Rights & Control and Future-looking Economic Engine sublayers are addressed. Issues with proper social interaction flow are addressed.

At this level in the smartup stack, the focus begins to shift more toward the outside, toward the physical usage of the service, and not its technical underpinnings. Toward that end, pathways with which others can interact, integrate, and extend the smartups services are developed and engineered. These become the domain of the next layer.

The Fourth Layer: Outward-facing Connections

A key vision of the smartup model is to encourage and enable outside parties–3rd-party developers and other smartups–to contribute to and expand upon your smartup’s vision. To bring that goal to fruition, a smartup makes anywhere from one to three of the following sublayers available to outside parties. How many sublayers are offered depends on the type of smartup and its overall needs and vision.

The three possible sublayers of the fourth smartup stack layer are:

1. Smartup API Access
2. Smartup Open Source SDK
3. Smartup Standards Group

Smartup API Access

By and large, the vast majority of smartups publish a set of APIs that allow outside parties select access to their datasets. As discussed in the final layer section below, the use of APIs by outside parties can be a major catalyst in a smartup’s growth and success.

Smartup Open Source SDK

The Software Development Kit (SDK) sublayer is more accurately termed an Application Development Kit (ADK) sublayer. The notion behind this sublayer is that there are core codebase modules that may very well be primed for open sourcing. We will see below in the discussion of the final layer of the smartup stack why open sourcing some (or all) of your smartup’s codebase can significantly accelerate the development and evolution of your platform.

Smartup Standards Group

This sublayer is the least-frequently encountered sublayer in the smartup world. The purpose of this sublayer is to standardize key pieces of a smartup’s platform.

Above, in the second layer section, I briefly mentioned PaySwarm. That is a perfect example of a smartup opening up some of its work, exposing their efforts to the open standards process. The newly-announced W3C Web Payments Standards Community Group will focus its efforts around core working technology—mainly PaySwarm.

If your smartup has key technologies that could benefit the greater Social Web by becoming a part of an open standard, then you are encouraged to offer up as much of your technology as possible to make that happen.

The Final Layer: the Smartup Ecosystem

This last layer is perhaps the most difficult one to describe in a few paragraphs. The goal is to freely offer unrelated, 3rd-party smartups and developers tools that they can leverage to help build out, evolve, and expand upon your smartup’s original vision. At the same time, the access that you provide to your smartup’s datasets and technology allows them to create their own paths to success. This is what I term a smartup’s ecosystem.

The sublayer offerings in the fourth layer enable the creation of a motivated, loosely-organized team of volunteer coders that can and will help expand upon and evolve your technology—at least that part of your technology to which you allow 3rd-party access. The power that a corps of ecosystem partners can bring to your smartup’s success cannot be emphasized enough. This is why the ultimate goal of each smartup should be to create more value than is extracted from the ecosystem.

As an example, think of what happened when Automattic–the original makers and copyright holders of WordPress–open sourced the codebase. This led to the eventual, very-large ecosystem of WordPress theme shops, plugin developers, and consultants. It also allowed for Automattic to gain an exceptionally cheap (as in cost) and talented labor force which it continues to use to this day to help it build out the WordPress codebase. That is one of the powers of crowd-sourced software development via open source practices.

Twitter is another great example of the virtues of creating an ecosystem. In its early days, Twitter not only welcomed, but strongly supported and encouraged 3rd-party developers and startups to help expand their ecosystem. They published a rigorous set of APIs that allowed for developers to gain access to many of the datasets Twitter captured. In return, the 3rd-party developers were able to create new features and services that augmented the Twitter experience. This led to a number of successful companies that seemed to pop up over night, swirling around the core of Twitter.

Without these ecosystem partners, Twitter may very well not have succeeded. Unfortunately, as Twitter continues to struggle with figuring out how it can monetize its success, it has cracked down on their ecosystem partners in recent months, making many of them wonder if they can trust Twitter anymore. Twitter’s brilliant ecosystem strategy may be coming to a close.

Facebook was also an early creator of an ecosystem of developers. They offered limited API access, created their Open Graph ontology, and even open sourced a few of their key technologies. However, for the most part, Facebook required (and still does) that the apps of 3rd-party developers live within the siloed confines of the Facebook universe. Facebook is not a proponent of the Open Web, Open Standards, or user-centric control.

Of course, neither Automattic, Twitter, or Facebook are considered smartups. Although they do support–each to differing degrees–some level of open source involvement with their projects, they fail the smartup test with respect to many of the other smartup stack layers detailed above.

Conclusion

You don’t build a startup, you build a company. Whereas the word startup is an enticing concept, it is nothing more than a brand, it connotes nothing more than the early stages of a company. Each stage has its own specific needs and foci. Smartups are no different in this regard.

As mentioned above, many Internet-based startups do not transcend their technology but smartups have a vision beyond their technology. Even so, smartups recognize that–as Internet-obligate entities–they cannot divorce themselves from their technological foundations.

A smartup first builds a strong, foundational layer of technology upon which it then layers on additional functional components. Each of these components–also called sublayers–help push the smartup closer to its vision. To fully actualize its vision a smartup must create the conditions that enable, encourage, and support a system of ecosystem partners. In unison with its ecosystem partners, a smartup works toward providing services that empower users to pursue some of their passions and fulfill some of their goals.

Past Smartup Series Articles

Part 1: Web 3.0: Powering Startups to Become Smartups

Part 2: Web 3.0 Smartups: the Social Web and the Web of Data

Part 3: Web 3.0 Smartups: Moving Beyond the Relational Database

Part 4: Web 3.0 Smartups: the New Web Business Space

</Smartups Series Part 5 of 5>

How to Get Me Involved in Your Smartup

Interested in getting me involved in your smartup? Please see my 7-by-7 rules.

Below you will find what I call my 7-by-7 rules. Whereas this is my current set of criteria, I believe this list is useable by anyone seeking to attract talent or looking to start a smartup. Please feel free to adopt, modifying, or expand upon this list and use it as you see fit.

I’ve created this post for one purpose. To help alleviate the emails, requests for Skype convos, and PMs that I periodically receive. I’m guessing that I’ve spent 200 hours this year alone rehashing, justifying, even debating to the point of arguing, some of the items below. This post will serve as a one-stop-shop to learn about my requirements. If you read this and still think that we should talk, then contact me.

First an important note. I have my own nascent smartup that requires most of my time. I also have a number of other projects and responsibilities that use up any remaining time. I am active on three W3C standards groups, closely work with a few open source projects, and spend as much spare time as possible with my family.

Thus it will be very difficult to get me to bite on your project. But if you want to maximize your chances of success, here is how.

General Requirements

1. Your startup must be in the Web-based or mobile-based Internet space. In other words, it is a technology-obligate Internet company. Although in the not-too-distant future, my horizons will broaden to include nanotech startups as well.
2. Your startup must be a smartup. I am not interested in stale Web-2.0 startups.
3. Your smartup must be looking to build, or at least contribute to, the Social Web
4. Your smartup and its founders must be proven participants in or at least supporters of open source projects and principles
5. Your smartup must primarily use open source tools and technologies to build its technology platform
6. You understand, believe in, and adhere to the practices and principles of lean startups
7. I will not sign an NDA. In 2009, I signed a few and requested a few others to do the same. In 2010, I requested zero NDAs and only signed one. Now, I will no longer request nor sign NDAs. To learn why, see this good read on the topic.

Specific Requirements

Note: If you are at the earliest stages of your smartup–having yet to incorporate–and are interested in coaxing me to join as a founder, then I will help you address each of the below points assuming that I agree to come on board.

1. The smartup founders must be pre-aligned on exit valuation and have a written exit strategy that all founders have signed. Why? See this great resource.
2. You must understand startup valuation and its impact on future employees and future investors. See this interesting link for one way to assess your smartup’s current value. If you think that your smartup has a current value other than zero, you must be able to justify it. Although your sweat equity and early accomplishments of course add value to your smartup, you are initially being compensated for your contributions by receiving a large chunk of very cheap stock. If you are a pre-profit, pre-revenue, pre-product smartup that has yet to cut a single line of code, please don’t overvalue your contributions at this stage. Outside investors will certainly not make that mistake.
3. With respect to point two above, you have a well-reasoned and modeled capitalization table (cap table). This may not seem crucial right now, but it becomes essential if and when you seek outside investment. Creating, understanding, managing, and periodically updating your cap table early on is key to making better business decisions. Remember, you are starting a business, not a charity.
4. Your smartup must know when to think outside of the box factory and when it must view the box from within. As a founding team, you will meet some very fascinating, talented, and inspiring people as you promote your project. Don’t get too caught up in wanting to hangout with inspiring people all day long. We all want to do that. What matters right now is laying a solid technical foundation for your smartup (see point 1, General Requirements, and point 5, Specific Requirements). Properly allocating scarce resources to accomplish that crucial task at inception is essential to your long-term survivability, investor suitability, and future success.
5. You firmly understand and agree that at the early stages of your smartup, tech is at the core of your company. To that end, your smartup has an internal technical founder. Whereas having a strong business foundation within the core team is fine, even desirable, not having any technical expertise in the core team is detrimental. See this article section for an exhaustive reasoning for this requirement.
6. You have sufficient in-house engineering skills to begin the process of building out your technical platform, of creating and iterating your MVP. You do not plan on using contract coding firms or overseas hacking sweatshops for building your platform. Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish. See this article section for a story behind this requirement.
7. With rare exceptions, I have no interest in becoming a basic employee or a non-founder-level executive. By and large, if you want me to be part of your smartup, I’m interested in a founder’s position with a healthy ownership stake. I must have the opportunity for significant reward with the opportunity costs that I will incur. If a founder’s position is not possible, I may consider an advisory or outside board member position for the right smartup.

As I began to compose a response to Nova’s query, it soon became clear that I had too much to say for a blog comment and decided that it was more fitting to write an article for my own site and then simply point Nova to it.

The Rights of the Internet and of its Users

If I were to attend the e-G8 Forum, what is the one big question that I think needs to be answered? Simple. Who owns the Internet?

If I were to attend the e-G8 Forum, what big issues would I push? Simple. I would stress two things: Global Internet democracy and Internet user rights.

What do I mean by global Internet democracy?

I’m not talking about a political movement to ensure that all peoples of the world are granted freedoms that those of use who are fortunate to live in real democracies experience—although that is of course vital to our survival as a species. Instead, I’m talking about the Internet being granted its own rights and freedoms—freedoms to grow, to prosper, to evolve unencumbered by corporate or governmental red tape as if it were its own emerging metaphysical entity.

The Internet has become our global data ecosystem. It is an evolutionary force in the speciation of humanities’ communication and computation infrastructure. As a result of the ease with which data of all types flows around the global, and with the increasing connections made to this data on a daily basis, our species is on the verge of seismic and profound changes.

In just a few decades, the Internet has grown like a developing nervous system, transcending national boundaries, shrinking geographic distances, dissolving geopolitical barriers, and binding many of us together into a single, global network. If allowed to continue its course unshackled by shortsighted power players, then it may become humankind’s most powerful, liberating, unifying, and transformational force.

What do I mean by Internet user rights?

With the recent net neutrality setbacks, discussions of the United States creating its own Internet kill switch, and the Commerce Department’s National ID initiative, informed netizens are right to be concerned about the future of their Internet freedoms.

In a free society, we should strive toward letting individuals, not governments or corporations, be in control of their personal data—an issue made painfully clear by the lack of real data portability among the Web-2.0-styled closed social nightclubs. We should advocate for the Internet rights of user-centric identity control, data ownership, and net equality for our data packets. These should be considered sacrosanct rights for all the Earth’s netizens.

There are a few promising projects in the works that address these issues. For example, the Freedom Box Project is working to create small, cheap, open-sourced personal servers that will return “power to the users over their networks and machines, returning the Internet to its intended peer-to-peer architecture”; the Diaspora Project offers users a distributed version of a Facebook-like social network; and the WebID protocol is creating an open distributed identity standard. These projects, and others in this space, need to be nurtured and given the liberty to proceed without regulation.

Collective and Connective Intelligence versus Myopic Dissonance

In my article, The HyperWeb: it’s All About Connections, I make an important point about the dangerous possibility that the Internet’s full potential might be purposely curtailed as a result of the myopic desires of a few power players:

Just like natural speciation, the continued evolution of the HyperWeb is not guaranteed. As with all evolutionary processes, advancements (innovations) may stop at a certain point.

The Web is a democratizing force that can help redistribute wealth and power. That is antithetical to most large companies interests—and a number of countries as well. Apple, Twitter, Facebook–and of course the phone and cable companies–want as much control as possible. They are fighting for control of the Web, not for the health of the Web.

It’s possible that for political, societal, or economic reasons–or some combination thereof–that the HyperWeb’s evolution may be curtailed. For instance, due to myopic business leaders, scared political leaders, or an uneducated, apathetic citizenry, humanity’s journey on the HyperWeb may not progress past Web 2.0 or Web 3.0.

The emergence of a truly Social Web will require not only policies that guarantee and protect the Internet’s freedom to grow, but also an informed netizenry that fights for its rights and freedoms. To date, neither of these prerequisites have been met.

The key message to communicate to the G8 leaders is that the world is struggling to become a global community and that a healthy, unfettered Internet may be our best insurance policy toward bringing that vision to fruition.

It is crucial that governments and corporations establish programs and invest in infrastructure that enable and ensure distributed services from identity, to micropayments, to unfettered mesh networks. It is critical that governments propose policies and enact laws that ensure user-centric ownership and control of personally-created and contributed data.

Let the people’s voices and data be freely heard and transmitted across the Internet. Let no one nation or corporation put up barriers to the Internet’s evolution no matter what the consequences may be to outdated notions of sovereignty.

Who should own the Internet? No corporation, no government, no organization, no individual. Instead, like the Earth, it should own itself.

My Related Articles

1. How the Death of Net Neutrality Effects You
2. Goodbye Google Old Friend: It’s time for the Open-Source Internet
3. Thinking Outside the Privacy Box
4. Regaining Control of Privacy and Identity: It’s up to Each Individual

It is important to state up front that there are many wonderful, helpful, supportive, knowledgeable, community-minded members in the greater WordPress community. If you are an active participant within this community, you already understand that fact.

Of course, a great community of supportive, fun-loving people does not guarantee that you will face few challenges with your WordPress or BuddyPress projects—whether that is starting and running a community, designing themes, or developing plugins.

This is the story about the challenges I have faced in bringing BP Privacy to fruition. It is just one developer’s journey and, as such, should not be construed as anything more than my perspective.

I hope that those who manage to read through this entire, long article walk away with not only a better understanding of some of the difficulties BP Privacy has faced, but also a feel for how they might want to approach taking on similar open source projects in the future.

Genesis of the Idea

In the beginning, there was an idea that BuddyPress needed privacy. Well, that idea was not present at the genesis of BuddyPress as it does not offer core privacy, but the idea was hatched in the early pre-RC2 release days of the BuddyPress project by two very active community leaders—one of whom was me.

At the inception of this project, BP Privacy had two developers. That’s right. I had a project partner. This partner was a key BuddyPress member and very interested in coding his first BP plugin. We teamed up on this project as we realized the complexity of the task at hand and that it would be beneficial to have a project partner.

We had a number of discussions about how we should tackle this project. I set up a subversion repository on my dedicated server for the project and gave him access. I started the long, tedious process of learning, really understanding, the inner workings of BuddyPress. After all, BP Privacy would not be a typical plugin. It had to interact with all the core BuddyPress components. It had to monitor and take control of output based on an individual’s desires. We both realized that BP Privacy was going to be a major, foundational component in its own right—even though it would be a third-party plugin.

However, as weeks passed into months, my project partner’s schedule did not allow him to participate. So, I told him that I was just going to get started and that he could join in at any time.

So that is the humble, less than exciting beginning of BP Privacy. It started with a two-person project team but ended up becoming a solo effort.

BP Privacy Timeline

On the BP Privacy site, I state in a blog post that this journey has been 16-months long. Of course, that was posted basically October 1, 2010. So as of the date on this post, the process is nearing 20 months. The reality, however, is that this project had its inception even earlier, almost two years ago.

Here is a blow-by-blow timetable for BP Privacy and some of the key factors and issues at each point along the way:

Project idea inception: Early April 2009. My project partner and I began discussing BP Privacy (what was at that time called BPAz or BP-Authz)

First code written: June 23, 2009. This was two months after hatching the concept. It was the point when my project partner determined his schedule would not allow him to participate. So, I started coding the project on my own.

First public beta release: December 5, 2009. Only four months and two weeks after the first code block was written, I released a very solid public beta version to the community. Note that before that public beta release, there was a small, select group of private alpha testers.

This was a very solid beta version with only a few minor bugs. It worked perfectly with BuddyPress v1.1.3, offering privacy filtering for four of BuddyPress’ then core components. But the rug was about to be pulled out from underneath the project.

Codebase and platform concerns arise: January 2, 2010. As BuddyPress 1.2 was fast approaching release, it became clear that a major BP Privacy code refactoring would be required. A good portion of the previous 4 months of work would need to be reevaluated and much rewritten. As I looked at the time commitment involved, I realized I needed to try a new approach.

Not surprisingly, this approach failed. It only raised about $175 dollars. Without a big financial boost to help me focus on BP Privacy, I had to turn my attention elsewhere for awhile.

Late spring through early fall of 2010: The BuddyPress project experienced critical uncertainties in my opinion. These uncertainties made me question its long-term health. During this time, the development of BP Privacy progressively slowed down, practically grinding to a halt in late summer of 2010 as I awaited a few, final core patches I had submitted months before to be accepted.

Due to these factors, nine months passed with very little development time being invested.

Announcement of Public Release (v1.0): September 30, 2010. I was privy to some promising developments in the world of BuddyPress that gave me hope that BuddyPress might actually weather the storm. So, after almost nine months of greatly reduced activity on my part, I went out on a limb, venturing back into the BP Privacy project on a more serious level once again.

I created the BP Privacy site and made an announcement on that new site that BP Privacy would be released on November 8, 2010. This is the first officially-advertised date given for the release of the public, production-ready version (v1.0).

A few weeks later came the news for which I had been waiting. The BuddyPress community had a shot of adrenaline and renewed hope. We welcomed the announcement that Paul Gibbs and Boone Gorges had been “promoted” to core committers.

Of course, November 8, 2010 came and went. I continued working on BP Privacy as time permitted as I patiently awaited the release of BuddyPress 1.2.7 which was finally released on December 22, 2010.

BP Privacy’s Future: See the end of this article.

Time Invested and Anticipated Returns

Projects of the magnitude of BP Privacy require a considerable time commitment. Whereas it is difficult to be absolutely precise, I have a pretty accurate estimate as to the number of hours I’ve invested in BP Privacy. My total time spent to date working on BP Privacy is 1450 hours.

What kinds of activities go into a project that would require such a time commitment? A great number of essential activities such as: emails, forum and IRC discussions, support of alpha and beta1 testers, writing and submitting core patches required to bring privacy services to BuddyPress, debating a number of these patches, studying and thoroughly understanding the inner workings of BP, keeping up to date with codebase changes in BP Trac, writing tools that were necessary in figuring out some unexpected behaviors with BuddyPress’ action and filter hooks, continuous and exhaustive testing of BP Privacy, and writing detailed documentation. Of course, all of this is on top of the actual coding of the component itself which has required (so far) two major refactorings of the codebase.

What will I earn for all of this effort? Zero. Okay, I had a total of about $225 in donations to help support development ($175 as mentioned above plus $50 received before that post). I am very grateful to all who donated, to my select testers, and to everyone who offered support in other ways.

This means that I will have earned just shy of 16 cents per hour working on BP Privacy. So, the next time you question the commitment and contribution of those who actively volunteer in the open source world, remember that number. Of course, if all the additional hours of time that I’ve donated on the BP support forums, IRC, via email, Twitter, and Skype are included, that total would undoubtably be about half of that.

Financially, I would have been better off spending that time working at McDonalds. It is ironic that the vast majority of people who will benefit from my work will not even contribute enough for me to buy a Big Mac. By the way, I do not eat at McDonalds so please don’t send coupons. In fact, I am not interested in any more donations.

Why do I have a section emphasizing the monetary aspects of BP Privacy? Because like the vast majority of people, I need to pay bills, put food on my family’s table, and save for the future. How many of you can donate 1450 hours of time creating free products or services for others to use?

I am a vocal advocate of the open source model, as anyone who reads my blog and tweets would know. I have volunteered a thousand hours plus of my time answering questions on the BuddyPress community support forums, via email, in IRC, on the phone, and via Skype. None of those hours are included in my total time spent on BP Privacy. Like many active members of the community, I give in more ways than just creating plugins.

The reality for me is that this community and its open source model does not make it possible to earn even a small part of my living in a way that I prefer—coding great-quality GPLed plugins that provide needed services to others.

As I do not take on client work–I’ve discussed this fact with people many times before–I need another means with which to recoup some of the time I have invested in coding open source software for the community. If you really want to learn more about this point, please read this post about this issue from my perspective—and read the comments for a fascinating discussion.

Lessons Learned

Here are a few lessons learned that may help other WordPress and BuddyPress developers have a better experience with offering GPLed software to the greater community.

Work on Projects that Give You Energy, Not Sap Your Strength: By and large, I have lost more energy working on the BP Privacy project than I have gained. It has been exceedingly frustrating at times. To be honest, if this were not something desperately needed for the BuddyPress platform, I would have dropped this project a year ago.

At the time I started coding BP Privacy, I was planning on using BuddyPress as the foundation of my startup, and privacy was key to that vision. So it made sense to continue BP Privacy and then release the component to the greater community once it was ready. Had I any idea how vocal the negative minority would be as they impatiently waited for me to provide them with high-quality, free-as-in-cost software, I would have canned the community release a long time ago and just worked on it for my private use.

The Vocal, Negative Minority: It is important to realize that more likely than not, the vast majority of users will be happy about your work, or at least indifferent. Unfortunately, human nature makes us more vocal when we’re displeased than when we are pleased. It is a minority of users that will be anywhere from disappointed to obsessively outraged. It will be this minority that will be most vocal. If you release your work to the community, expect to have a greater volume of “I hate you” than “I love you” feedback from your user base.

Whereas community members may appreciate your volunteer help on various support forums, and paying clients may love you, when it comes to freely-contributed plugins, don’t expect the same rosy reception.

Don’t Expect Donations: Based on the vast majority of all plugin developers’ experience, ninety-nine percent (and realistically more) of all users will never donate to your efforts. There are many plugin developers who have written about this. Here are just a few articles to shed some light on this issue. Again, read the comments to get a more balanced perspective on this issue as there are good points on both sides:

• Have you made a donation to your WordPress Plugin Developer?
• Do we do enough to support WordPress Plugin Developers?
• Open Source Motivations

The donation model is not broken, for the vast majority of creators, it never worked to begin with. I have tried many tactics to increase donation conversions. My plugins and appropriate blog posts all had obvious donate badges. But that has not made a difference. Donating to something that is freely available apparently also goes against human nature.

Plugin support: Unless you clearly and explicitly state that there will be zero support offered for your plugin (at a minimum that should be communicated in the readme.txt file) then it is your moral obligation to offer some level of support if you release a plugin to the community—which includes forking an existing plugin.

Therefore, expect there to be questions that must be answered, that user issues will take away time from your other projects, and possibly impact your paid work and family obligations. There will be users who claim they are having a problem with your plugin when in actuality it will be caused by something other than your plugin. No matter how hard you try to communicate that it is not an issue with your plugin, in these people’s minds, you will still be the party at “fault”.

It is for this reason that some plugin developers fully exercise their GPL rights. Please note that if you plan to charge for support, you should be aware of a potential issue.

Since all WordPress plugins and themes need to be licensed under then same GPL version as WordPress itself–GPL version 2–you do not technically have the freedom or right to charge support fees. That explicit freedom and right was added later in GPL version 3. (Compare the last paragraph of Section 1 of GPL version 2 to the last paragraph of Section 4 of GPL version 3).

Therefore, if you are planning on charging for support, you are operating outside the freedoms of the GPL version 2. You would be wise to seek legal counsel.

Disclaimer: You should seek legal counsel if you have questions or concerns about your freedoms and rights under the GPL. I am not a lawyer and the information presented is my opinion only.

With Plugin Popularity Comes Possible Trouble: I do not envy plugin developers with high download counts. I know that that means one of two things: they are at the first stage of the plugin’s support lifecycle where they are spending an inordinate amount of their time supporting the plugin (probably for free), or they will soon be entering the final stage of the plugin’s support lifecycle where they discontinue support and future development as their time commitment to the project cannot be sustained.

It is for these two reasons that I always donate to plugin developers whose software I use and only use plugins that I am sufficiently interested in as I expect that one day I will have to maintain them myself.

Plugin development should not be a popularity contest, he or she who has the highest plugin download count often does not win. Do not release a plugin for praise and glory. That rarely happens. What really happens is the more popular your plugin becomes, the greater the potential for you to lose control over your time. This can lead to a rather unpleasant, overall experience with your project.

Alpha & Beta testing: If you have limited time to work on your project, then it is best to make the alpha and maybe first beta version private releases. Provide copies only to those people who you believe will genuinely test it and provide you with useful feedback. It is better to have a small, focused group of testers than a horde of quasi-interested and knowledgeable testers.

The exception to this lesson would be if you have a team of developers who can share the responsibilities of managing a public alpha and beta test. But, if you are a solo developer, you could be in for a world of hurt if you set your pre-release software free for any and all to test.

Bugs will continue to be found even after you’ve released the first public version. You have to go no farther than WordPress or BuddyPress Trac to see how many bugs still exist in those stable, public products. That is the nature of all software. No matter how mature a software product, there will always be bugs, some of them serious.

Develop on a Developer-stable Version: Although BuddyPress v1.0 was the first official public release deemed suitable for general use, it was far from stable from a developer’s standpoint. This is evidenced by the fact that significant changes occurred between BP 1.0 and BP 1.1 that caused developers some grief and then even greater changes occurred between BP 1.1 and BP 1.2.

In my opinion, BP 1.2 should have been then first public release. In other words, BP 1.2 is really v1.0 in my mind. Now, with BP 1.3 close at hand, I’m concerned that developers (and possibly even users) will be faced with difficult upgrade challenges. Although, Paul, Boone, and John have been working hard to make the transition to BP 1.3 as painless as possible. So, perhaps my concerns are not valid. Whatever the reality, when the dust settles, BP 1.3 will become the first developer-stable version in my opinion.

Group or Solo effort: As should be obvious from the start of this article, you need to carefully vet your project partners. Although I had little data with which to make an honest assessment of my project partner’s suitability–the BuddyPress community was very new at the time–I nevertheless made a mistake at the start of this project. I should have quietly started by myself and only asked for interested project partners once I had some code to share and knew more about the skill sets of the various BP developers with whom I associated.

Communicate Less, Not More: This may come across as a hypocritical suggestion in light of some of the communication issues BuddyPress had last year. However, you need to differentiate BuddyPress as a developer platform and community from that of developing a BP plugin. With the former, the community is what makes the project a success. With the later, only a few key people need to be kept apprised. Communication is essential to the former, whereas to the latter it is not necessary until the plugin is released.

When it comes to plugin development, it is better to surprise the community with a new release (especially the initial release) than it is to build up their expectations. Although there is a thrill with getting validation for your efforts at the start of a project, there is no way to know what challenges lie ahead and how difficult the task may be. Interest and attention in any project can quickly turn negative if there are seemingly few results to share. Blame will always go to you, whether the issues holding up your project are beyond your control or not. This is especially true for a project that is deemed very important or possibly even vital—such as BP Privacy.

Once a plugin is released to the world, then proactive communication and vigilant project management are crucial to the project’s continued success. But before the public release, communicating less might actually help the project succeed as you won’t be distracted by the negative vocal minority.

Promised Release Dates: As a follow up to the point above, it is best to never put a date on a release. You are working on a plugin, not the core foundation of WordPress or BuddyPress where it makes sense to have project deadlines and development freeze dates.

If you do communicate a release date, do not be overly concerned if you fail to meet it. You are generously working on GPLed software that will more than likely earn you little if any for your efforts invested. You are not beholden to anyone.

Even the BuddyPress project has difficulties meeting its promised release dates. As this article can witness, there are many factors that contribute to a missed release date. Some are beyond your control. From a community standpoint, it is best if people remain patient and remember that they are getting GPLed software that provides them many freedoms of use. The software will be released when its released.

Use of the WordPress Plugin Repository: The WP Plugin Repo is a great service to developers and the greater community. You should use this service if you are planning not to exercise your full GPL rights. However, do not use the Repo for releasing alpha, beta, or RC versions. Most users will have no clue what an alpha or beta version truly means. More importantly, most will not care. If it’s on the Repo they’ll expect it to work. You should make your plugins available on the Repo only when they are ready for full public release. Until then, use another service, or your own server, to make pre-release versions available to those whom you wish to have access.

When Will BP Privacy Be Released?

Over the past two months, I have been reassessing my role in this project. As you have found out from the above history, my time commitment and investment into this project have been substantial. I’ve decided that the time required to support and maintain this project, and the energy required to do it properly, is incompatible with me earning a semblance of a living. It has also taken too much focus away from my current startup.

This project started out as a team effort but unfortunately became a solo effort. I believe that this project needs to become a team effort again—as in a team of developers, not a team of testers.

To be clear, BP Privacy was never intended to be a core BuddyPress component—even though some of you think that was the case. I am not and have never been part of BuddyPress’ core development team. I was simply an active community volunteer, support forum moderator, and plugin developer.

As most of you know, I am a staunch privacy advocate. Since my first days with the BuddyPress project, I have believed that privacy was a necessary core feature. That has yet to be realized. Perhaps part of the BP Privacy codebase can serve that purpose in the future. Although it might make more sense to refactor BuddyPress, offering true core privacy as a component.

What does this all mean?

I will be releasing the fully-functioning BP Privacy codebase over the next several days, along with a very extensive manual (35+ pages). At that point, I will end my official involvement with the project, and as such, I will not be providing any support.

The project will be in the hands of the community. It will be available for anyone to use as is, expand upon, fork, or even merge into BuddyPress core. Perhaps a group of developers will adopt BP Privacy and maintain it as a community-based project.

Because of my decision to end my official involvement with the project, I’ve decide to back tag the version I’ll be releasing, making it a release candidate instead of a public, ready-for-production version. Therefore, it will be v1.0-RC1 instead of V1.0. It also means that I will not be placing it on the WordPress Plugin Repository per the reasons I mentioned at the end of the last section. It will be available for a short while on the BP Privacy site before that site is taken down. The link will go to some yet-to-be-determined public repository. I will also be placing the link within a BP support forum thread.

By the way, for any group of developers interested, I have registered the bp-privacy distribution name with the WP Repo. I would be more than willing to assign that over to another group, if that is possible, or at the bare minimum add other committers. But be advised that I will not be participating in the project anymore.

Once BP Privacy v1.0-RC1 is out, it will be up to each person to fully evaluate the plugin and decide for themselves whether or not to run it on a production site. Although in my exhaustive testing BP Privacy works very will under WP 3.0.4 and BP 1.2.7, you must decide for yourself the viability of its use in a production environment. Thus, please be advised, no matter what you do, you are on your own until (and if) a new group of developers takes the reigns of BP Privacy and assumes support and maintenance responsibilities.

As far as the upcoming release of BP 1.3, I have not fully tested the most recent BP trunk version in Trac. Therefore, I cannot say how much refactoring may be required. I may put some effort into that, but do not wait for me. You should take the initiative and bring it up to date on your own volition.

As far as the few people that have pre-purchased BuddyPress Privacy Support Plans, I will be refunding all the monies received over the next week. But first I will focus on getting BP Privacy out the door. I will also be refunding my two, wonderful advertising partners. Yes, your ads have been up on BP Privacy going on three months (I have only charged them for the first month), but you have not received the type of exposure that you had expected. It is only fair that you get full refunds as well.

I hope that BP Privacy finds a useful life going forward!

This is the fourth article in my five-part series about Powering Startups to Become Smartups. In part 1, we discussed why Web-2.0 startups were stuck in the box and how in-the-box thinking leads to missed opportunities. In part 2, we discussed the most salient aspect of Web 3.0, the Web of Data and the emergence of the Social Web.

Part 3 was a rather in-depth discussion of the challenges and pitfalls of relying solely on a 40-year old database model, the RDBMS, to power a Web-3.0 smartup. We looked at the NOSQL class of database models and discussed how they might provide a better fit to a smartup’s increasingly-complex dataset in the realm of the Social Web.Don’t confuse idealism with realism. Most startups do not have a vision that can scale to a Twitter or Facebook-sized company.

In this last article, we’re going to look at how the first three facets of Web 3.0 create business opportunities and challenges. In particular, we’ll discuss the new startup funding paradigms that smartups can leverage to evolve, grow, and succeed in business.

Hanging Up a Shingle is Easier Than Ever

In Web 2.0, the barriers to entry for a Web startup began to decrease. The quality and number of Open Source tools with which to code, design, market, and serve up a website ballooned. Many of the tools were free (as in cost) or cheap to use. However, even with these great tools, there were still a number of barriers that prevented a potential startup from quickly and easily hanging out its shingle.

The cost of hardware, hard-drive space, bandwidth, and hosting were a few key hurdles. The other two big hurdles were finding skilled programmers (who expected to receive high compensation for their work) and the availability of easy-to-use Web programming frameworks with which to prototype quickly a new site.

These barriers meant that a startup often had to raise a few million dollars to adequately capitalize itself, to give it a fighting chance at building up enough traction to get noticed by users, additional investors, and potential acquirers. But the Web-2.0 business space continued to evolve, innovating new, more efficient ways of doing business.

The wisdom of agile development via frequent iteration and the rise of the lean startup movement–with its minimally viable product mantra, customer development practices, and smart pivoting–transformed the way most Web startups conducted their affairs.

Now, as we enter the final stages of Web 2.0, the barriers to entry are quickly crumbling. In most cases, smartups can startup with a lot less money and the tools, funding options, and potential talent pool are better (and cheaper) than ever.

For instance, it is easy to obtain high-quality, cheap computers, and quickly compile from source (or install from binaries) powerful Open-Source Web development frameworks. There is also an army of young, talented software engineers each chomping at the bit to play the startup game and do so for little up-front. It is relatively easy to secure funding, especially as the amount required to get going is a fraction of what it used to be. The biggest challenge that startups face now might be hiring—how to identify and attract sufficient talent from the hot-shot coder pool, talent that has the proper skills, fit, and alignment for your company.

Whereas securing great talent might be one of the most difficult tasks facing startups today, I believe that the most revolutionary change in the Web business environment is how Web-3.0 smartups will be initially funded.

Smartups Know Their Niche

If you are starting a business then there must be a reason. All businesses are founded with the same fundamental goals: to generate revenue so that they can grow, make profits, and financially benefit their owners. As we are not talking about not-for-profits (which still require revenue generation to fuel growth), it is assumed that this basic truth is known by your startup.

Vision, goals, and strategies are all key parts of a startup’s foundation. But the most crucial aspect of any startup should be its ultimate goal—its exit strategy. This is the financial payout or payback for the risk taken and hard work invested into the startup.

Your vision might be for your smartup to change the world in a bold and positive way. Your goals and strategies are focused toward achieving that vision. But the ultimate business goal as an owner is to profit from your risk and hard work. Profiting not only enables you and your family to survive, but also can fuel your future visions to positively impact the Earth.

At the earliest stages of your startup, you should come to an understanding, an agreement on your exit strategy. To do that, you must decide if your startup realistically has the potential of growing to a Twitter or even Facebook-sized company, or if you think it is more of a small or medium-niche player, an acquisition candidate. This one issue can radically dictate your operational strategies and it can determine your probable funding path.

In determining your niche, don’t confuse idealism with realism. Most startups do not have a vision that can scale to a Twitter or Facebook-sized company. Although many startups think that they have the next killer Web service, the one that will give Google, or Twitter, or Facebook a run for its money, the reality is that many of these startups lack a game-changing vision. Instead, they are small to medium-sized niche players who will either be perceived by the Web’s behemoths as bugs to squash or, if they play their cards right, considered as potential acquisition candidates.Web 1.0 was the reign of the VC; Web 2.0 saw the rise of the Angels; Web 3.0 will be the domain of MicroAngels

Smartups are honest and clear about their niche and potential market size. If they truly have a game-changing vision backed by extraordinary technology, then they proceed down that path. If they have a great idea that adds value to the Web but does not have the potential to become the next Google, then they proceed down a different path.

There is nothing wrong with being a small to medium-niche smartup. Recognizing that fact upfront can give you a competitive advantage over your colleagues at other startups who are clueless about their market potential (and are therefore not smartups).

But being realistic, instead of idealistic, does not mean that you undervalue your vision. You need to remain flexible and periodically reassess your exit strategy. Small niches sometimes grow into larger niches over time—when Google and Facebook started up, the current market niche for them at the time was rather small as well.

Whether you’re a first-time entrepreneur or a serial entrepreneur with a record of success, you need to have passion for and belief in your smartup’s vision. If the results of your honest assessment about your smartup’s current market potential do not turn out the way you had hoped, don’t reactively hedge your risk because of disappointment or fear. You need to remain tenacious, positive, and take measured risks.

Web 2.0 = lean startups; Web 3.0 = keen smartups

Although Web 3.0 is fermenting evolutionary changes in the Web business model, economic reality is hard to overcome. Those Web-1.0 and Web-2.0 businesses with the biggest coffers still wield a mighty sword of influence. If you don’t realistically believe that your Web-3.0 smartup is destined to become its own behemoth, then you must learn how to play with the Web-1.0 and Web-2.0 relicts.

Keep Your Eye on The Exit

Why should smartups make figuring out their exit strategy a top, early priority? Since most smartups are not in contention to become the next Facebook or Google, the most realistic exit option they have is to be acquired.

Yes, scaling up for an IPO was all the rage during the disastrous-dotCom bubble, but today that is a difficult task. Instead of shooting for targets that are too far away, it is best to focus energies on targets that are much closer.

It is not atypical for a VC-backed startup to require 5 or so years before it either is acquired, has an IPO, or closes shop. The greatest majority of them do the latter. Big companies are actively swooping up startups to fuel their innovation and augment their talent pool. Many of the acquired startups are pre-revenue, being purchased for less than a $20 million valuation. It is significantly easier to shoot for this type of early exit rather than shooting at an IPO target that usually requires five or more years to pull off, if at all.

If a smartup plays its cards right, it can startup, build traction, and attract the interest of a potential acquirer in a two to three year timeframe. A successful, early exit will allow each happy entrepreneur to launch their next venture and try for even greater rewards.

Keen Compliments Lean

The lean startup movement incubated and spread its wings in Web 2.0. But in Web 3.0, it will be the keen smartup that succeeds. A keen smartup is a lean startup that wisely embraces the Social Web and the Web 3.0 paradigm. Being keen requires you to be well versed in all aspects of your business. It requires you to remain agile not only with platform development, but also with funding.

Smartups need to apply the same agile, lean thinking across their entire business operations —not just their platform development approach. This can be a real problem as many startups are formed by a team of software engineers, the majority of whom have little if any prior business operations experience.

The initial funding amount that most startups now require is often way below the level at which a traditional VC considers investing. But VCs do not like to be left behind. Paraphrasing Aristotle, VC’s abhor a vacuum. As VCs saw that the trend of decreasing investment requirements was becoming a general reality, some innovated their financial models creating a funding category called super angel, seed-stage VC, or MicroVC.

Remember, smartups not only know their niche but also have determined their ultimate goal for forming, their exit strategy—what they consider to be a desirable, achievable, and adequately-profitable sale of their business.

But investors often look at and treat startup teams as if they were a flock of lost sheep: sheep who love grass and are experts at eating it, but have no idea how to get home. That is the challenge that every business faces. How do you get home? How do you win the game? How do you succeed at bringing your ultimate goal to fruition?

This can be an issue as a smartup’s exit strategy may not be in alignment with an outside investor’s exit strategy. What one considers a fantastic acquisition offer, the other might scoff at as unacceptable.

Funding Revolution: VCs to Angels to MicroAngels

During these late stages of Web 2.0, we’re beginning to see important shifts in the way startups are funded. Startups can bootstrap in innovative ways by the joint leveraging of tools like Kickstarter and social networks to quickly generate operating funds. The meteoric funding success of the Diaspora Project is a great example.

Is Disapora’s funding success a fad? I believe not. I think it presages a fundamental revolution in startup funding—what I call the rise of the MicroAngels.

MicroAngels are investors (professional or part time) who provide small amounts of capital usually less than $10,000.

Although it appears to me that Diaspora is not a startup, but an Open-Source project, their novel funding approach is a harbinger of the changing funding climate in Web 3.0. These changes will accelerate, bringing more opportunities and challenges for both entrepreneurs and investors alike.

Before accepting angel funding, make sure that your team has a pre-agreed upon exit strategy and that any potential angel investor agrees to the exit strategy as well (in writing).MicroAngels will start to play an increasingly important and prominent place in the earliest stages of a smartup. However, this does not mean that typical, larger angel funding will not be necessary at a future stage in a smartup’s lifecycle. It takes a lot of runway to fuel a startup, to help it gain sufficient traction so that it becomes a tasty and attractive morsel to potential acquirers. As we discussed above, a smartup knows its niche and has a well-defined exit strategy.

Most Web-3.0 smartups require a lot less money to get going. They need fewer funding dollars than they would have three or more years ago. Whereas a few million (two to five) might have been the norm in the past, now a smartup might be able to open shop with $50k to $250k (or even less). This is a relatively easy amount to acquire.

A Thousand Angels in a Land of Giants

It is my opinion that for the majority of today’s Web-3.0 smartups, VC (Venture Capital or Venture Capitalist) funding will be a last, not first, resort. In fact, a startup that accepts VC funding as its first resort, instantly boxes itself in, greatly reducing its flexibility.

In general, the offered financing terms of VC funding are often too restrictive. Smartups that accept VC funding could very well turn their once-agile smartup into an inflexible small business. Why is this the case?

In Smartups Know Their Niche, we discussed the essential requirement that smartups need to honestly assess their market potential and size. Whereas VC funding is likely a poor fit for the vast majority of Web-3.0 smartups (at least in their initial stages), it might be absolutely necessary for those few smartups that truly have a solid, game-changing vision. Whether you initially seek VC funding or even consider VC funding at all greatly depends on your smartups vision and true potential.

It is not atypical for VCs to expect a minimum 10 to 20 fold return on their investment. A VC literally has the power to decide whether an acquisition offer is accepted, whether you as a founder and entrepreneur get to cash out and be rewarded for your vision and hard work—often referred to as letting the founders earn.

This can mean that acquisition offers that might seem attractive to founders, angel investors, and share-holding employees are not sweet enough for the VCs. The VCs will literally disallow any sale until either an offer is received that meets their minimum ROI or the startup folds.

This effectively obviates any early exit strategy that founders may have and more times than not results in the startup fizzling out after five or so years if there is not a successful M&A bid or IPO. Whereas insufficient operating capital (runway) will lead to failure, in the above scenario, failure is the result of ridged VC expectations and not due to insufficient runway.

A Caveat
The reality for smartups is that attracting first round funding from angels (or via other means) does not guarantee that you’re heading toward a healthy early exit. It is very likely that after your first round of capital, you’ll require a second round. This might be from a mid-level angel or it could be from a MicroVC. You should be aware that it’s realistic for your anchor investors to seek subsequent rounds of financing, not solely for the additional funds (i.e., for increasing runway) but often so they can turn over the daily investment oversight as the smartup begins to scale. For that single reason, it is always wise to stay friendly and connected to VCs, even if you think you’ll never need them.

If funding decisions are not made wisely and at the proper stage in a smartup’s lifecycle, the result could be to powerdown your smartup returning it to the lowly startup classification, throwing it back into the Web-1.0 and Web-2.0 funding shackles.

Is the current spate of early exits just a Web acquisition bubble? How long will the current early-exit renaissance last? That is difficult to predict. Since it is more than likely that at some future point the current wave of early-exit opportunities will hit a roadblock, it is wise to keep your options open and your connections with the greater funding community (MicroAngels, Angels, MicroVCs, and VCs) healthy.

Conclusion

The Web is at a tipping point, not a proverbial tipping point, but an actual point in time where accelerating changes brought on by increasing social connectivity, data complexity, and user frustrations are literally transforming the startup and business landscape. There are big challenges and opportunities to those startups that embrace the Web-3.0 paradigm.

The biggest challenge and opportunity may be the emergence of the Social Web. The Social Web is about users. It’s about innovating new ways to provide increasing connectivity to the masses on one end while on the other providing individual users with open access to and control over their data, wherever those data are stored.

Users are getting fed up with the difficulties of navigating between social networking islands. A typical Web user today has a multitude of accounts, each with its own username and password, each associated with a specific Web service, and each as a separate, independent repository of a subset of their overall content, of their overall IdentitySpace.

Whereas their are few single-sign on solutions, most do not address the larger issue of data portability, data redundancy, and user control. As we’ve discussed throughout this series, one paradigm-busting change that Web 3.0 may bring is the liberation of users’ data from the data prisons and the yielding of its control back into the hands of individual users.

Web 3.0 will break down Web 2.0’s proverbial walled garden of disparate user data. The omnipresent closed data silos will be relegated to a distant memory.

Web 3.0 is about small changes and tiny connections making big differences. But it’s also about big, disruptive ideas in user data freedom and revolutionary funding models altering the Web’s business environment.

It’s no longer sufficient to simply startup. Web-2.0 startups are trapped in a box, oblivious to much of the changing Webscape. In order to survive and thrive in Web 3.0, you must breakout of the box, step outside the box factory.

Smartups will prosper in the coming revolution by embracing the Web of Data and the Social Web, by carefully modeling their dataspace so as it can scale more quickly and efficiently, and by being keen about their funding options and ever aware of their exit strategy.

Web 3.0 is the realm of the Smartup!

Angels and VCs to Follow on Twitter

Here are a few Angels and VCs that I follow who actively tweet. There are others, but I feel that I get a sufficient overview of startup-investment news and ideas from these guys. Also, and this is very key to me, most of these guys provide useful information and usually do not pollute my Stream with stuff that does not apply to the topic at hand, does not stray too far off the reasons for which I follow.

Steve Blank

John Greathouse

Eric Ries

Mark Suster

Venture Hacks

Fred Wilson

AngelList, from the Venture Hack guys

Here are a few others to consider (I do not currently follow but will occasionally check their public Stream):

Jeff Clavier

Sean Ellis

Dave McClure

Keith Rabois

Y Combinator

Additional Resources

Paul Graham has an interesting take on The Future of Startup Funding

An interesting article on crowdfunding via Kickstarter.

Mark Suster has an interesting, five-part series on angel investing

An interesting book on the topic of exit strategies, Early Exits: Exit Strategies for Entrepreneurs and Angel Investors

Basil Peters, the author of Early Exits, has a very informative, four-part video presentation: How Not to Sell a Business – Don’t Blow The Biggest Deal of Your Life

Basil also has additional, useful information on his AngelBlog website

Tech ‘seed’ investors kick valuations into long grass

Is Convertible Debt Preferable to Equity?

Rise of the Angels by Naval Ravikant (co-founder of Venture Hacks)

A disturbing article claiming that some of the top MicroVCs (SuperAngels) may be in collusion. There is much debate to the validity of the claims made within this article. My point in including a link to this potentially-specious article is that Smartups need to be very careful in the way they approach funding. The professional startup-funding world is a game in which most players are trying to get the best deal for themselves at the expense of all others. Smartups are best served by partnering with funders that are truly trying to help them succeed and not just viewing them as another chip on the table. Here’s a follow up article on what is now being called AngelGate as well as Mark Suster’s perspective— a VC I recommended above to follow on Twitter.

_________________________________________________
</Smartups Series Part 4 of 5>

Continue on to Part 5 — Building the Social Web: the Layers of the Smartup Stack

Other Smartup Series Installments

Part 1 — Web 3.0: Powering Startups to Become Smartups

Part 2 — Web 3.0 Smartups: the Social Web and the Web of Data

Part 3 — Web 3.0 Smartups: Moving Beyond the Relational Database

Part 5 — Building the Social Web: the Layers of the Smartup Stack

The truth is that the promise and accrued benefits of the Semantic Web are far from dead. The Semantic Web is growing as we speak. Facebook’s Open Graph ontology clearly demonstrates that big social networks are beginning to understand the power and benefits of opening up some of their data to the Web of Data.

What this bold proclamation–which has once again sparked a vigorous debate–clearly shows, however, is that the Semantic Web has a big issue with its own semantics.

It Hurts to Step on a Fork in the Road

When some people speak of the Semantic Web they understand that to be different than Linked Data. Whereas, from a technologist’s stand point, there are salient differences between these two terms, for the vast majority of netizens they could care less about the engine behind the machine.

The reality is that these two terms are different movements pushing for the same outcome. I won’t go into the politics, policy differences, and technological disagreements that led to the fracturing of the Semantic Web umbrella into multiple camps, into what are best called differing movements. Suffice it to say that whether technologists like the term Semantic Web or not, it has made its way into the mainstream lexicon.

One reason that bold statements like the “Semantic Web is dead” periodically resurface is that the higher-level concept and promise of the Semantic Web have become lost in the underlying movements. Members of the Semantic Web umbrella have hampered their success by placing too many forks in the road. They have created a road that to some people seems undesirable to travel.

To the basic Web user, the implementation details of a semantified Web do not and should not matter. What does matter are the accrued benefits, whether these benefits are perceived or not by the users. Discussions about which technologies are best at bringing a fully-actualized Web of Data to fruition should be done out of the limelight.

Rebranding the Semantic Web; Getting the Semantics Right

When I use the phrase Semantic Web I use it in the broadest sense of the concept. I do not use it to plant my flag in one camp, to pledge my allegiance to one set of technologies, to cozy up to one particular movement. To me, the terms Semantic Web, Linked Data, and Web of Linked Data are the same. They are phrases that represent a powerful concept, a noble and beneficial goal. They all connote the Web of Data.

In a previous article, I wrote about the need to repackage the promise of the Social Semantic Web. My point in essence was that in order for others to better understand and appreciate the benefits of the semantification of their data, a major rebranding of the term “Semantic Web” was required; a major marketing and educational effort was necessary.

As I state in this reply to a comment on my Apple’s Ping Versus the Social Web article:

The marketing of Semantic Web concepts, technologies, and benefits was somewhat bungled from the start. Unless you were a technologist, the packaging of the SemWeb brand was about as enticing as a box of overly-ripe bananas. No one would want to open that box.

This rehashed debate demonstrates that there is a need to rebrand the Semantic Web, to recapture its true and overarching meaning.

If the Web of Data is to become a healthy reality, we must move beyond the nitpicking semantics that pigeonholes the terms Semantic Web and Linked Data into specific boxes of technologies, into two camps at odds with implementation details.

Whereas some use the term Web 3.0 as a better moniker for the Semantic Web brand, Web 3.0 is more than just a synonym for Linked Data, for the Web of Data. Perhaps the terms Semantic Web and Linked Data are too stale or damaged to repurpose as a reinvigorated brand. Perhaps we should simply use the most apt and to-the-point descriptor we have—Web of Data.

As it is predicted that more data will travel across the mobile-based Internet, and not via Web instances, perhaps Web of Data is the better term. But the semantics of the word Web will need to be clarified. Interconnected data located on the Internet that are machine discoverable and understandable is analogous to the Web of Life in ecology. The “web” means the connections, the interdependencies. Therefore, the Web of Data is not about the Web-based, browser-accessible portion of the Internet. Instead, it is about the global connectedness of data.

Whichever term is chosen for the rebranding effort, the key point is to provide an effective, consistent, and clear message. For instance, the physics of aerodynamic lift and the mechanics of a plane do not matter to (most) passengers. What matters is that they get to their destination safely and hopefully on time. Airlines cannot run a successful brand campaign by extolling the virtues of lift. Instead, they skip the details and focus on the benefits. Likewise, focusing on the underlying technologies used to link data (and the differences in approach) does not a successful marketing campaign make. Instead the message must focus on accrued benefits to individuals, companies, and society.

Is the Semantic Web dead? That all depends on whether you’re referring to the concept or the movement. Whereas it may very well be that it’s time to put the phrase Semantic Web to rest, the ideals, goals, and vision of the original meaning are alive and well.

Today, Google and Verizon issued a joint statement on their net neutrality compromise and proposal. In a previous article, I discussed net neutrality, the rumored Google deal, and the need for an open-source Internet.

In their joint policy statement, Google and Verizon outline seven key elements as they call them. In their second element, they clearly state that they are for net neutrality as it pertains to the wired Internet (referred to as wireline). But pay particular attention to the fifth and sixth elements. This is where the issue of overall net neutrality comes into question.

In their fifth element, they make room for the possibility of “additional, differentiated online services” as long as they are “distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules.” In other words, since no one can predict the amazing “new” products and services that will come into existence as the Internet evolves, they want to make allowances for the future possibility of a new class of access service that is different from the really-old “traditional broadband Internet access services.”

What does this mean in simple language? It means that new, unforeseen online access services could in essence offer priority throughput for a price. It means for the right price, that these so called “additional, differentiated online services” could charge premiums to have packets travel faster down their pipelines.

Finally, look at the sixth element in their joint proposal. Google and Verizon are unequivocally asserting that there is a difference between the wired and wireless Internet. They clearly are stating that net neutrality should not apply to the wireless Internet.

This is absurd as there is just one Internet. The access method does not the Internet make. It is called Internet access, after all. Should we now differentiate between the flavors of Internet access. How about twisted-pair access is different than fiber access, that twisted-pair access is clearly traditional but fiber is new and non-traditional. Fiber would then fall under the fifth element’s jurisdiction. This would allow Verizon, for instance, to charge to rate limit the packet traffic traveling across their FiOS fiber network. Perhaps this is what they intend as it can be argued that fiber is not wire and that fiber is not (yet) a “traditional” access method.

Thanks to Google, who used to be very clear that net neutrality applied across the entire Internet with no exceptions, this issue has become even murkier and true net neutrality more unlikely. Under Google’s and Verizon’s vision, the Internet will no longer be a single, nebulous, all-encompassing entity. There will be many Internets, each defined by how data is transmitted.

The promise of net neutrality and net equality will depend upon which Internet you surf. In fact, the Google-Verizon deal may put the issue of net neutrality to rest once and for all. Net neutrality will be remembered as something way back in the days of the traditional wired broadband Internet. The days when there was just one Internet.

This is an ominous portent, a clearly disturbing sign that a few of the most powerful players want to renovate the Internet landscape, turning it into a tollway instead of a freeway. Whereas access to the freeway has rarely been free, once your data hit the freeway, they had the same travel rights as any other data packet. But that may not be true going forward.

Unfortunately, if this proposal becomes a reality, the Internet that once spawned dorm-room disruptive startups, the Internet that spurred unfettered innovation, the Internet that offered a level playing field to all participants no matter the size of their bankroll, may very well be a thing of the past.

As I said in my previous article on this issue:

This could very well result in many small players–individual bloggers, Web-based startups, small traditional brick-and-mortar companies with online stores–from being kicked out of the game. There would be no realistic way in which small entities with equally-small or non-existent budgets, could compete for access with a well-funded major company.

Professional bloggers, small web-based businesses, open source projects, and the people who make their living providing services to these entities (web designers, theme builders, plugin developers, e-commerce and SEO consultants) could very well see their business evaporate as the cost to compete for equal data access with their well-heeled corporate counterparts would be prohibitive. Venture capitalists and angel investors could see their investments in startups suffer as more and more of the runway would be required to gain acceptable data throughput.

The Internet is quickly evolving into a mobile-preferred space. Many startups, bloggers, and web-based businesses are scrambling to make their services wireless friendly, or are creating wireless-only based services. If wireless Internet traffic becomes exempt from net neutrality laws and the Intertube’s big gatekeepers are allowed to rate limit throughput, then focusing on the wireless-access side of their business could very well be a big mistake. Without big pockets, there is no realistic way that these small players can compete for equal access.

So, if you care about your Internet rights and the freedom for your data to travel at the same rate as all other data, then speak up. Write your elected officials, blog about this issue, create websites to organize against the Google-Verizon pact, and get ready to fight the oncoming war against net neutrality. Either we stand our ground and fight for data equality on the Internet or risk that our businesses, innovation, and freedoms get sucked into the maelstrom.

Related Articles

Google-Verizon Joint Statement Presages End to Net Neutrality

Goodbye Google Old Friend: It’s time for the Open-Source Internet

UPDATES:

August 11, 2010: The New York Times published an article discussing the reactions of Facebook, eBay, and Amazon to the Google-Verizon deal to end net neutrality.

August 13, 2010: AT&T published its views on this issue on their Public Policy Blog. Read their post, Wireless is Different. Their stance is disappointing but not a surprise.

August 14, 2010: A group of protesters rallied outside the Googleplex, showing their support for net neutrality and dismay at Google’s partnership with Verizon.

The Argument for Net Neutrality

Net neutrality in a nutshell is the unfettered, equal access to the information highway. It means that whether you are an individual hosting a video podcast out of a small room in your apartment, or you are a large, traditional media player, you can expect to have the same opportunities. As long as you can pay for Internet access, your content–when traveling across the Internet backbone–will be treated the same as anyone else’s content.

What the monopolistic phone and cable companies want to do is rate limit the packet traffic traveling across their sections of the intertubes, providing fee-based preferential data transmittal. This in effect would result in many of the small, independent, upstart media companies from being able to compete on an equal footing with the larger, wealthy, more ensconced media behemoths. In essence, the phone and cable companies would decide what content was worthy to travel at the fastest rates. Those who can afford to pay the most will get the best service.

This could very well result in many small players–individual bloggers, Web-based startups, small traditional brick-and-mortar companies with online stores–from being kicked out of the game. There would be no realistic way in which small entities with equally-small or non-existent budgets, could compete for access with a well-funded major company. Those who had the most money would control what travelled across the Internet. The stark reality of this scenario is that it could very well be that most Web surfers and Web shoppers would not want to visit a site whose data trickles in compared to a large site whose data is received at blazingly-fast speeds.

It is important to realize that this is not an issue of a site running on an underpowered server, being hosted on an overcrowded shared server, or having exceeded any bandwidth limits on its hosting account. This is an entirely different issue. It is all about what happens once your data packets leave your ISP. Currently, they travel as fast as anyone else’s packets. But if Verizon (and now maybe Google) et al have their way, some packets will travel faster than others.

This could spell doom for the Internet’s healthy growth. In a strange, reverse chronological twist of history, the information-age of enlightenment could spiral down into the misinformation-dark ages. Although there is much misinformation and disinformation spread across the Web-based Internet today, small players, independent voices, and whistle blowers all have an equal platform from which to counter propaganda. But if a few large players in essence decide what gets broadcast across the intertubes by sheer virtue of their economic muscle, then the truth will be in constant jeopardy—not to mention just plain ole economic competition.

Although Google has championed the cause of net neutrality, in the past sometimes painting phone and cable companies as evil, these recent reports may presage the sad demise of a once-glorious friend and partner to the Internet. We should no longer view Google as the Internet’s big brother, the company that we can count on to guide us, protect us, and help us grow. Instead, we must watch out for it becoming the Internet’s Big Brother, a company that does whatever it wants to control, to monitor, and to profit over its minions.

It is an unfortunate, probably inevitable, reality that to remain competitive and provide a sufficient growth rate so that its stockholders remain happy with its performance, Google may have to turn to the dark side at some point. Could that time be approaching?

Even if this story turns out to be blown out of proportion and Google remains the Internet’s loyal friend, is it wise to continue to trust and rely upon a few large companies to act in the best interest of the Web’s netizens?

Enter the Open-Source Internet

The open-source software movement is responsible for many of the Web-based Internet’s glowing gems. There are numerous open-source tools from programming languages, to server software, to database engines, to content management systems that have been instrumental in building the Web-based Internet. These low-cost or no-cost tools have allowed individuals to hack together paradigm-changing services from the comfort of their small rooms. These tools have been equalizing forces in many once-competitively lopsided business markets.

So why can’t the spirit, energies, and values of the open-source software movement be harnessed to create an open-source Internet? The open-source Internet would be a technological landscape where the whims of a few market players or the malevolence of rogue governments could not alter the premise of the game. At the core of the open-source Internet would be the belief in net neutrality, net equality, and freedom.

The open-source Internet would be a system where all of its parts are governed by open-source principles. There are already a few key parts in place: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a not-for-profit corporation charged with the management and oversight of the Domain Name System; the availability of numerous open-source software products, many that are currently used by Internet Service Providers; a cadre of willing and able people waiting for the opportunity to bring a vision like this to fruition. (Note: see update section below for recent concerns with ICANN)

A big issue would be gaining control over sufficient bandwidth in the various trunk lines of the Internet’s backbone. There currently is quite a lot of dark fiber (unused ultra-high capacity fiber cable) sitting idle. Level 3 is one of the largest owners of dark fiber in the world. Perhaps a non-profit consortium could be formed to negotiate a deal. The next big hurdle would then be the myriad hardware components and requisite buildings to house the equipment. Once again, this is not an insurmountable task, it is just a monumental task requiring great foresight, tons of effort, and initially some really deep pockets.

The biggest issue, and the final hurdle, could very well be the show stopper—providing Internet access to users. This is of course where the AT&T’s, Verizon’s, and Comcast’s of the world have a decided monopoly. It is why the issue of net non-neutrality is even possible. Even if a consortium is formed and successfully negotiates access and control over a piece of the Internet’s backbone, the final road into users’ homes and businesses will be controlled by the select few communication companies. They are the de facto gatekeepers to the Internet. They are the final obstacle to creating an open-source Internet.

And this brings us full circle to the start of this article. As the gatekeepers between our computers and the Internet, the Big Brother telecoms effectively have us between a rack and a hard drive. Although it is conceivable to open source most of the Internet’s parts, the last mile is tightly guarded by the telecoms. They spend billions of dollars in legal and lobbying activities to maintain their grasp on the Internet’s cul-de-sacs, the all-important connections with endusers.

The cost of open-sourcing the last mile would almost be astronomical. Ironically, this is the one aspect of this vision where Google could actually play the major role. At one point, Google (and perhaps Apple) was vying for purchasing the rights to a large block of the newly-released wireless spectrum that was going to be auctioned off by the government. It was thought that they might possibly offer WiFi or WiMax Internet access to endusers, putting the issue of net neutrality to rest once and for all. With these new reports about Google’s possible deal making with Verizon, you have to wonder if their do-no-evil mantra has been mothballed.

It’s important to state that this is not an anti-capitalism stance. It is an anti-monopoly stance focused on keeping the Internet’s playing field level. It is a pro-startup stance aimed at ensuring competitiveness at all levels on the Internet.

Even if an open-source Internet might not be a realistic possibility, we still have a chance to fight back. If you believe in net neutrality, please contact your elected Federal officials and let them know why this issue is so important. Our nation’s economic future and the sovereignty of truth are at risk if the interweb’s landscape is skewed to favor the few.

What do you think?

How can the open-source software community bring the vision of an open-source Internet to fruition? Are there viable business models that can help build-out and sustain an open-source Internet? Is net neutrality something that the world’s governments should ensure? Will you continue to support Google by using their products if the reports of their collusion with Verizon on this issue pan out to be true?

Note: Here’s another story detailing the finer points of the potential Google-Verizon deal.

Updates

August 9, 2010: Read my follow-up article on the Google-Verizon joint policy statement.

November 30, 2010: With recent concerns surrounding the ability of governments to seize control of domain names, the question of the desirability of ICANN to play a role in an open source Internet has been called into question. Read, P2P-Based DNS Seeks to Counter ICANN and Thwart Domain Seizures.

January 2011: With the recent uprisings in the Middle East, people have started to think about ways in which access to the Internet could be ensured to all people, thus removing the leverage that governments have to terminate communication to the outside world.

March 6, 2011: CBS has an interview with Eben Molgen on what he is calling the Freedom Box. This cheap device addresses some of the issues of control of the last mile that I discuss above. But as wireless signals travel very short distances, the Freedom Box can only create localized networks. The Freedom Box is basically a wireless router (which many people already own). It is not clear what additional functionality this device would add on top of a basic router, but presumably it would make creating mesh networks very simple, so simple that a user without much computer experience could do it with ease. Although Freedom Boxes would allow people to instantly create a massive network, they do not ensure access to an Internet connection which would allow communication with the outside world. Hooking up the last mile with the outside world would still be an issue.

My Related Articles

The HyperWeb: it’s All About Connections

The Web is Not (yet) Social

How the Death of Net Neutrality Effects You

Google-Verizon Joint Statement Presages End to Net Neutrality

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 or chemical compound.

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.

Updates:

Here’s a great editorial on the foolish-popular thinking about good chemistry versus bad chemicals: Where are the champions? Viewing requires registering for a free Nature.com account.

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.