Three top motivational, free thinking, futurist, fighting the good fight and winning:

Michael Tellinger founder of The UBUNTU Party and contributionism movement
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/funds-for-the-ubuntu-party-to-participate-in-the-south-african-elections

Foster Gamble founder of the "Thrive Movement" and heir to the Proctor Gamble fortune.
http://youtu.be/OibqdwHyZxk

John Mackey founder of Whole Foods and Conscious Capitalism
http://www.consciouscapitalism.org/aboutus
http://youtu.be/5CXrrwOktmQ

  Very cool project, thanks.

Have you decided on an animation tool, if not check out:

http://www.muvizu.com

Very easy to use, free download and excellent quality.

I thought it might be fun to produce a series of animated promotional, educational videos, in graphic novel cartoon style. I'll start on a mockup proof of concept later today and post it here.

Cheers,

Quote from: delulo on March 08, 2014, 04:03:04 pm

I am grateful for Adam's proposal which encouraged discussion and clarification. Any discussion is good if it is not taken personally. Having business development in such an open form like within this forum is a game changer in terms of transparency but also a challenge as people have to change their perspectives a bit:
(1) You can not expect the ready made products like you can expect with closed development
(2) It is natural that proposals, time tables and other plans are not perfect because they are in development
(3) People have to lower their need for consensus/unity because everything is discussed openly and it is impossible that all agree.
Having to lower expectations for a uniform consensus doesn't mean to give up on it. The opposite is true. The most effective way is to acknowledge the valid points others make and emphasize the consensus and the dissent alike. If people expect full consensus or expect to always get approval of their proposals everyone tends to highlight the dissent. This is a challenge for everyones character and part of the process of shaking of the total guidance of individuals by society/by an outside force. This is what societies had to learn when "democracy" / freedom of speech was introduced to the political realm (this challenge is not that present in the US because the US had more or less always freedom of speech (at least compared to European monarchies...). A discussion culture that allows to efficiently work together in the presence of dissent might be something that has to be learned within businesses that have open development and community involvement.

This doesn't mean I3 can not improve on their communication with the community and on involving the community (!) and might be well adviced to not develope everything openly to not disappoint people. Overall though open development might have some positive implications for efficiency. I wrote about this here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3099.msg39175#msg39175

I could not agree more with Stan on that it all is a balance and that if one thing is perfect a lot of others would be inferior. So one of these conflicting oppositions CAN BE open development (as described above with its ad- and disadvantages) and leadership / effective decision making; less though if people acknowledge the realities of open development. I think it is a fact (correct me on that if applicable) that I3 produces decentralized solutions as a centralized entity. Altough I3 is being driven by community contributions/discussions a lot more than any centralized entity I can think of; the Bitcoin Foundation and all (?) altcoin developers are also a centralized entities; a centralised entity is an entity making decisions finally by their own judgement rather than having a fully democratic stakeholder vote on every decision.

Decentralization is a huge buzz word within the crypto community and for a good reason as it is a central part of the consensus/blockchain technology. The decentralization part is not what makes the consensus technology more efficient, it makes it trustless. With the goal of getting to the best DACs as fast as possible we have the same trade off again. If you opt for complete trustlessness you opt for a free DAC market like we have it right now (the altcoin market with a lot of pointless DACs. I am not making to point to abolish this market!!). A less trustless and less democratic solution is to give someone control over your funds which has a better judgement than the average investor plus can make use of the donations to offer legal consulting and his own technical consulting (by employing developers that make everyday development tasks that give time for technical consulting in the case of I3 / Daniel) and other services which have to be purchased just once or are relatively easily reproducible plus will actively attracted DAC proposals and non crypto players to get consulting. This of course is not a political decision that is forced on the market as a whole. Anybody can contribute funds if he trusts the model described above.

There are ad- and disadvantages of (de)centralisation of decision making in terms of efficiency:
The advantage of centralized decision making is: An individual or group with an understanding of the matter that is above the group average can be chosen by the majority. Second advantage: The individual/group can go through the material more in depth than every single stakeholder could by himself. If all voters / the whole group would go through the material with the same depth the system as a whole would consume a lot of time. More likely is that the whole group would research the topic less in depth which results in a lower quality of decisions.
The disadvantage of centralisation in terms of efficiency is: Many different perspectives are a big plus for making a good decision. You have to trust the individual / group to not run away with your donations or get hammered the night before the shark tank event etc.
Overall the decision whether to opt for more trustlessness respectively control of your stake/vote or for more efficiency depends on the application and whether interests are aligned. I am not proposing that one thing is better than another! WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE is a discussion that is aware of the trade of character of a lot of things.

A DIFFERENT MODEL FOR ACCESSING DACs than the shark tank model would be to have a community vote by stake size where stakeholders can vote or not vote. A vote is a yes for the DAC, a no is a vote against the DAC. A "not vote" is not a no but is given as a vote to either I3 / Daniel or a group that would be elected by all stakeholders. I actually think the shark tank model is better but this could be an add on for daily business as opposed to the event character of the shark tank model. The shark tank model also creates publicity which is a plus.

I would like to encourage everyone to discuss this without being biased just by seeing the word centralization not having a negative connotation. Centralization and decentralization should not be a fashion and not a goal in itself. This would be highly missleading and dangerous to the degree that it prevents people from thinking THEMSELFES about the mechanics of things which again lets others exploit those mechanics. Two examples: MMC advertised its DAC/coin through "decentralizing business administration decisions" which surely sucked some people in that believed in decentralization as an end in itself applicable to every problem. An opposing example is: Any charismatic leader that advertised the centralization of power, culture and worldview as a goal in itself. Those ends in itself (ideologies) give you a warm feeling because it is simplifying the judgement of the world and it frees you from thinking on your own but it is dangerous. I am not saying that either the MMC creator or some charismatic leader acts knowing that it won't work. It doesn't matter.

I value Adam highly as a member of this community and believe and hope he keeps contributing under the the conditions of open development. Again I think I3's decision making is far more open to comunity contribution than others. The solution is TO KEEP ON STRIVING FOR UNITY AND COLLABORATIVE CONTRIBUTION ACCEPTING YOU WILL NEVER REACH TOTAL CONSENSUS OR TOTAL ACCEPTENCE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.

love and peace  

*BA in the title is Business Administration

"Blessed are the peace makers..."

 

Also, great points about the purpose of decentralization.

Decentralization is for immunity from corruption by seduction or coercion.
We want the Invictus movement and its products to be decentralized for this primary reason.

But centralization in engineering design and management - anything that requires optimization of a system or process - is necessary to achieve that optimality.   One person or small team has to get it all inside their heads and then make careful tradeoffs.

Just look at all the classic jokes about products designed by committee!

  Both you and Stan or spot on..

Management/design by committee is fine for projects with much narrower scope. BitShares is a revolution, revolutions are spawned by visionaries, run by dictators or decree. 

The shortest/fastest path to market in a project of this scope takes a leap of faith in the visionary and architect(s). I suspect once the foundation is built, code libraries, sample DACs, tutorials, etc.. the application development community will come out in droves and the games will begin.

We are working on an educational series designed to help people understand the crypto-currency space.  Our goal is to have people searching for information on Bitcoin to find our site as the most useful and informative site on the internet.  Then after answering their questions on Bitcoin they will be ready to hear every thing else we have to say.

  true a concise and correct cloaked message answering "What is BitShares" , framed within a "What is Bitcoin" will gather a larger audience.

The challenge is to stay linear and on topic. We're all excited about the possibilities and promise of BitShares, DACs and crypto 2.0 in general. But, we tend to deal on the hypothetical more often than not.

The audience we need to attract will not be able to follow. We need evangelist and messages that are not preaching to the choir (us). When we can explain and sell to our coworkers, parents, etc..  we'll be on our way.

Education is everything, many threads on the forum are ripe with knowledge, compiling and presenting it will require a repository, framework, authors, editors, presenters , etc...  A huge but worthy undertaking, do you have the bandwidth?  How can we help?

We are moving everything to bitshares.org so we want to put our effort in building up that domain.   It currently redirects to invictus.io, but I have asked our team members to get a server up and hosting that.   The new site Brian has under development will be out in just a couple of weeks at which point invictus.io will redirect.

excellent

it might also make sense for stakeholders with admin rights on coin related :

• Meetup groups to add BitShares.org as a sponsor
• Facebook groups add and pin a BitShares.org post

fwiw, Alexa rankings are very misleading, at least they used to be I don't know if things have changed. Their stats are/were based on whether browsers had Alexa toolbar installed or other things that could send data back to Aexa, which boosted rankings for the segment of the population that used those tools i.e. webmasters.

true, any thoughts on an alternative source of metrics? the idea is to improve SEO, agnostic of the toolset.

if not there will be. If not dedicated then serving that role (wearing that hat)