edit NotYet ---------- NotYet

1. Pete Forsyth

   NotYet edit

   I generally agree with what Patty, Julia, and Llywrch say below. Thinking of "Mission" as near-term, and "Vision" as long-term, pie-in-the-sky seems very useful. There's another distinction I think is very important. It may be intentional that it has not been made, but I think it's necessary. The evolving AboutUs community, and the business that creates and maintains the platform and seeks profit for its investors, are utterly separate entities. There may be a great deal of overlap, and that may be a good thing, but I don't think it's possible to have a mission statement or vision statement that is 100% applicable to both. And of course, it should not be up to the community how AboutUs intends to make money, etc; the community may want to weigh in if it feels that the company is endangering the community's mission or vision, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for the community to define what the company is. So, some clarity on this point might make it much easier for the community to determine its mission/vision as a somewhat independent entity.

   I have a couple more specific thoughts to toss out, things that AU could offer to the public that would be a benefit, and might belong here:

   • AboutUs could be a platform where organizations can build an "interim" web site when they're brand new, or in a huge hurry, or don't have funds to pay a tech-savvy person. Of course there are other options for this -- Wordpress comes to mind -- but AU might be a worthwhile alternative in some cases, especially if the organization wants wiki-like input from its members, customers, etc.
   • AboutUs could be a friendly place for people to get their feet wet with wikis. Wikipedia is huge and well-known, but not always the friendliest place, due in large part to its very focused mission of building an encyclopedia (and all the policies and intricacies that go along with that.)

   That's what I got for now. I also have some miscellaneous thoughts on my user page, though they're not necessarily "mission level." -Peteforsyth 01:42, 27 December 2007 (PST)

   Discussion
2. Patty42

   NotYet , because while you attempt to say who you are,as a wiki, you fail to say why you are, or the purpose. This leaves the reasons why we should participate unclear. eg. Wikipedia we know is an encylopedia so if we need to look up information we go there, wikiHow is a place where people look to find out how to do things. It is unclear, as to the actual purpose of AboutUs is. Why should we join, what will we be acheiving, how will we help others by volunteering. Somehow this information is left out or unclear. Patty42 08:14, 15 November 2007 (PST)

   Since posting my first thoughts I am still trying to figure out the why. From what I have been able to conclude is, that About Us is to the businesses and corporations, as wikiTravel is to Travel, and wikiPedia is to information. Businesses will prosper and corporations and the stockholders will gain financially. This then is what I am taking away from reading what our main purpose is. So how do the people gain from the work of the many contributors ? I guess what I am inquiring about is whether or not my conclusions are correct, or am I still missing something - the why Patty42 20:21, 30 November 2007 (PST) edit

   It seems as if the only ones that are voting Yes, are those that work and get paid for their work on Aboutus. As I read once more, the vision, it is as unclear to almost everyone contributing, execept those who are employed on this site. Your vision still has not been clarified, as to whywould volunteers want to work on this site. Just to make business and corporations have their web sites noticed??? which in fact would be a financial gain for them. What would those contributing gain from this. This is the vision that needs to be clarified, and the goal. Where is Aboutus going, and for what reason. So we have the why, where, 'how and most importantly the WHY not clarified. I am still not convinced and I fear others are not either.Patty | talk 09:07, 11 December 2007 (PST)

3. ArifIqbal

   NotYet Something seems to be missing. May be its good enough, I am still thinking about it. edit

4. Julia

   NotYet Note on Mission Statements: Mission statements describe what your business is and what it will be over the next few years. They define who you are, what you do, what you stand for and why.

   Note on Vision Statements: Vision statements describe what the organization wants to become in the long term; what it wants to be known for; its purpose for existing. Visions represent dreams! They are an idealistic stretch - perhaps not even achievable. They can be just beyond reach. edit

5. MichaelMaranda

   NotYet Your comment here. edit

6. Llywrch

   NotYet I disagree with the "vision" section of the statement. As much as I believe Wiki is a powerful and useful tool, to assert that people should "immediately think of Wiki as the best way to collaborate" is misguided, & invites our critics not to take us seriously. ("When all you have is a hammer...") The Wiki method has its strengths & weaknesses as does any tool; we should advocate for its application where it is appropriate. -- Llywrch 08:31, 15 November 2007 (PST)

   Update: I posted my thoughts on this in more words here on my blog -- Llywrch 15:27, 29 November 2007 (PST)

    edit 
   

   Discussion

   Geoff, after reading your comment I thought to myself "of couse 'when it is appropriate'" and immediately went to the document to change it. I then found that simply adding that phrase doesn't work (for me). Do we need to suss out when it is appropriate? Thoughts? TedErnst (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2007 (PST)

   A wiki is like any tool: it works best when one understands the problem and the tool. I've been working on an essay that goes into more detail about this; I'll gladly share it when I'm confident that my statement is readable. ;-) -- Llywrch 09:08, 21 November 2007 (PST)

   Cool. I'll look for it when it's ready. peace, TedErnst (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2007 (PST)

7. Brandon CS Sanders

   NotYet I love the work everyone is doing right now. It feels creative, collaborative, and headed in a great direction. edit

8. Asad Butt

   NotYet The document almost works for me. I just need some more time to think over it before I say YES . Still need to figure out how doing away with Stage 3 will help. edit

9. John Stanton

   NotYet I think we are really over thinking this. It should be a simple clear statement of what the company is and what we want it to be. It is not about us, it's about AboutUs. Alternate Version edit

   Discussion

   John, could you update your status message, please? TedErnst
10. Asma Khan

    NotYet I will be happy to participate and improve.Uptil now,the first para,highlights the user-friendly nature of AboutUs.org for new comers and the grouping of values in a specific order also reflects our intent. edit

11. Mehrunnisa

    NotYet Viewing it. edit

12. Salihawaqar

    NotYet Still reviewing. edit

13. TedErnst

    NotYet Please read Patty42's comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikitravel is a travel guide. What is AboutUs? Once we have that simply answer, we'll be done. edit

14. Kasey

    NotYet need to update again

15. Laiq Jafri

    NotYet Still reading it. edit

16. UmarSheikh

    NotYet Don't agree with the assume good faith stuff, especially in the face of evidence to the contrary edit

    Discussion

    I am sorry Umer but I couldn't understand your comment. Could you say a bit more about it? Especially "in the face of the evidence to the contrary"? Best, Asad

    I also do not agree with RealPeople. I am trying to first list what I do not agree, and then talk about why it is so. I prefer anonymity of using any name that I want. But the only problem is when people try to use names to deceive, that is the point where I want to put a foot down. Getting back to the paint raised by Asad, I mean that if we detect what looks like vandalism to us, then what does it mean that I assume good faith? Do I do it because I believe he is innocent, or does it mean that because the effort required to punish the vandalist is much more than I can afford, especially because the vandalism is also probably a small offence, I am better off ignoring? If it is the latter, then I do not actually believe in the value but am just being pragmatic.

    Or does the value just mean that I will let people who look like vandalising continue in the hope that they will come around to being more constructive? There are many more issues with the value, so I guess I am better off listing them now!

    Umar, perhaps it would be good to discussion AssumeGoodFaith on the AssumeGoodFaith page? I would guess a wider group of people would participate that way. And an outcome of the discussion would then be a better page (wiping away the discussion and incorporating it's points into the article). Meet you there? TedErnst (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2007 (PST)

17. Ali Aslam

    NotYet Need to think harder. edit

18. Saad Saeed

    NotYet I agree with the mission statement and i see it as a place where we want to be. I see the vision as how we are going to get there. I am unsure about it if it grabs me in the gut. I will probably revise it after giving it some thought. edit

19. DrewMyers

    NotYet I'm fine with everything except the Vision section. As written, it seems to say that the vision is to provide Wiki software for organizational collaboration. Is that the goal of AboutUs? edit

20. MartinPfahler

    NotYet I notice I am spending less rather than increasing time at about us. Thus I and the folks I deal with routinely seem to be a bad fit or “outsiders” relative to this vision stuff, or perhaps more likely we just don’t find at aboutus the tools we need to do our work - or find the processes too slow. I’ll be watching how the rest of the people define this vision/mission, then see if it has any relevance or upside for me or the community I am involved with. edit

    Discussion

    Hi Martin, things have moved quite a bit on this page. Care to participate again? TedErnst
21. TakKendrick

    NotYet I agree with what both Patty42 and Julia are saying. The problem here is that neither the mission or vision clearly explain what the organization's purpose is (mission) or what we as a community think the organization is going (vision). I don't mean these in terms of the company "AboutUs" but the living, breathing community that the company serves.

    That said, I just made a few "radical" shifts to the language view the history that tried to repurpose the mission and vision. I didn't touch the "values" or "unpacking the mission, vision and values" sections, because I didn't have a good sense of what changes would be good there. Am excited to see someone else take a swing at both my edits and the other sections. edit

edit YES ---------- YES

1. Sanwal

   YES I am happy about your policy now.YAY edit

2. Julie Caldwell

   YES Looks great. Easy to read. Thanks for including me edit

   Discussion

   Julia, care to participate? I know your status message on stage1 said to let you know when we were in stage3. It seems we're going to call this done after stage2, so I think we're at the point you were waiting for. Join us? TedErnst
3. Chris Babson

   YES Looks good to me - great icons on values pages! edit

4. mubin

   YES I like the direction we're in. I'm happy with it. edit

5. VinhNguyen

   YES I like where this is currently at and where it's headed. I have some concerns over what we expect of Newcomers and Oldtimers alike. However, as I'd like to see forward movement on this I'm siding with a YES, but will adjust my position and the text if necessary. edit

6. Ward Cunningham

   YES Happy with the "shape" vision. edit

7. Fridemar

   YES It is an honor to me, to be the second happy Yes-Voter in State 2 of the democratic process of identity forming of AboutUs.Org. As the list is meanwhile not anymore in the chronological order, I remember that Ward Cunningham was the first one, who was trustful and courageous enough to give his YES to the Mission and Vision of AboutUs.org. Although the formulation has changed over time, I still agree with the spirit of its current state and think, that this applies to all current YES-voters.

   I feel fine with State 2, especially with the following component, which I complemented by "Initiating" and "Practising":

   Transparency, Real People

   • OpenBusiness processes
   • WorkInPublic

   So youll soon see another stage in my initiative for OpenBusiness, described by the following tags: SocialDomainTrading, literateMarketing, TransparentDomainPortfolios, DomainSharing, DomainPortfolioSharing, CollaborativeDomainDevelopement, DomainShareBartering, etc. , blogged as say-yes-to-aboutusorg-state-2.html on the SocialCommonWealth.Com

   edit

   Discussion

   Fridemar, ' Kasey and I are attempting to remove "Initiating, Monitoring and Practicing OpenBusiness processes from the WhoWeAre page, but only want to do that if this concept is included in one or more values pages. We're read the Meatball pages on OpenBusiness and Hoofsmith and love what you've done with the WorkInPublic page, and are now wrestling with the OpenBusiness concept. What's the meta for OpenBusiness? Is that a branded term for this kind of doing work? Or is OpenBusiness itself the meta? What do you think? TedErnst (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2007 (PST)

   Thx Ted for the hint: So I streamlined my above text into OpenBusiness. It goes without saying for me, that only discussing the new paradigm of OpenBusiness (as aplying "radical transparency" to business-processes (to build online trust)) is not enough. We need prototypical projects. See my initiative DomainsToBeDeveloped.

   Currently I am a lonely pioneer in the alpha state, a caller in the desert. I ask other peers to have the courage to open up their own DomainPortfolios in AboutUs, so that we can interact with LiterateDomainMarketing. A good example could be to initiate a project StocksAtHome.com, using similar distributed software as SetiAtHome.com, motivating programmers to start their job, by pledging them, say 50% of the sold involved domain-names, being paid by risk-capital entrepreneurs. OpenBusiness in this case would imply OpenMails to different programmers and entrepreneurs, perhaps even refining the concept by making explicit the necessary steps and showing and discussing the (OpenSource) resources and benefits for such an endeavour. The rest of the gain from selling StocksAtHome.com and similar domains could be divided between different promoting peers. Even the negotiation process of the partition of the profit could be done in public. OpenBusiness is the meta.

   
   fridemar 14:00, 6 November 2007 (PST) SocialCommonWealth.com(perma-link)

   Fridemar, cool. I think it's clear that we (you and I, you and AboutUs, me and AboutUs) are kindred spirits. I'm comfortable using the term OpenBusiness as long as there's no expectation of some specific practice implied. We are attempting to be an open business, just so there's no confusion. We just don't want to be in a siguation where the definition of "OpenBusiness" is written elsewhere and then we're expected to somehow comply if we are to continue to use the term. You know what I mean? TedErnst (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2007 (PST)

   Ted, no problem. It's an evolutionary process. Every actor tries to manifest their idea of OpenBusiness. Chances are that the whole process converges to some more or less optimal form of a balance between openess and closedness. After all we have a skin, which offers such a balance :-)

   fridemar 16:11, 6 November 2007 (PST)

   Sounds great! Now to see if the others agree. -) TedErnst (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2007 (PST)

8. Obed Suhail

   YES I like the direction this process is taking and the document has improved a lot. I'm excited! edit

9. Di

   YES Very excited with where this is heading. I'm happy with the current mission statement. I really like the "How We Work" and "How We Treat Others" definitions. edit

10. MarkDilley

    YES I have avoided this for a long while, thanks to Obed for asking me to participate. The document is sufficiently simplified for me to say yes. edit

11. Hassan Javeed

    YES Well, I agree with most of the document :). edit

12. Mohammad Ghufran

    YES Sounds good. Like the direction it is headed. edit

13. Ray King

    YES I really like the clustering of values and hope that will lead to some words or phrases we can use for the major value clusters. I'm already happy with the mission and vision statements edit

14. Arsalan Javaid

    YES It looks fine to me. edit

15. FatimaRaja

    YES I like it. I have my reservations about the 'Organizing Organizations Worldwide (OOW)' in the vision - it seems unnecessary - but on the whole I like where we are now. edit

16. KeithBTeague

    YES I really like how simple, direct and to the point the direction has taken. I say, let's go with it. edit

edit Haven't seen Stage 2 yet

1. Bryan Daugherty

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   I left Bryan a talk page message on 12 Nov inviting him here. TedErnst | talk 13:02, 15 November 2007 (PST)

2. Diana Demarest

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Diana, thinks are heating up. Care to participate again? TedErnst | talk 13:07, 15 November 2007 (PST)

3. Misha

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Misha, Stage2 is well underway, care to join in? Kasey 13:12, 15 November 2007 (PST)

4. ChristopheGDucamp

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Hi Christophe, things have changed quite a bit since you've checked in here. Care to participate againi? TedErnst | talk 13:15, 15 November 2007 (PST)

5. Jules

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Hey Jules - things are really moving here now. Care to participate again? TedErnst | talk 13:44, 15 November 2007 (PST)

6. Sander Snel

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Hi, Stage2 of WhoWeAre is heating up, click the link to participate. Kasey

7. Charles F. Radley

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Stage2 of WhoWeAre is heating up, click the link to participate and if you have anyquestion just ask. Kasey

8. RandyPenn

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Stage2 of WhoWeAre is heating up, click the link to join the poll. Kasey 13:45, 15 November 2007 (PST)

9. Muchadoaboutsomething

   Haven't seen Stage 2 yet Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   • Stage2 of WhoWeAre is heating up, click the link to participate. Kasey 13:22, 15 November 2007 (PST)

edit Inactive ---------- Inactive

1. Umair Tamim

   Inactive Haven't read it yet. Will contribute when I do. edit

   Discussion
2. Hallmur04

   Inactive edit

   Discussion
3. Blake Hinckley

   Inactive Will change my status when I do. edit

   Discussion

   Hi, I left a note on your talk page as well. Interested in participating in Stage2? Kasey 13:07, 15 November 2007 (PST)