As an administrator, I would not recommend that we ban JTHESSERT.

We have sent him an internal message today specifically emphasizing the importance of following the community guidelines.
We also have updated the guidelines to the following:
“Community Guideline Infringement.
Continual infringements of these community guidelines may result in the deactivation of your user account.”

JT we simply ask you to follow the community guidelines

I think this site is a great resource, and appreciate its availability: if NCI wants to at any time respectfully request I stop posting re Institutional Accountability/ Community Participation/ Community Resources -- I will certainly honor that request.

JON, Thanks for the reply.

My confusion may be in part due to the fact that I am learning: the institutional accountability wiki was the first one I ever made; and am not clear on the specifics of the discussion that you and NCI have been having off-line.  Bowo suggested for you to clarify the specifics and was ignored...

My confusion may be due to the fact that I know Melinda is the WiserEarth.org / NCI communication person, and I am perceiving her comments to reflect the perspective of NCI; as no NCI wiserearth user made any effort to address any of the concerns / questions voiced, they all seemed to imply support for her comments. 

When you said you are open to discussion for a payment plan etc. , you also imply support for her idea coming to fruition -- from my perspective. 

-----

Jon wrote:

“This suggestion was to add For Profit companies and Public Agencies to the community directory. Period. “  Jon also mentioned he wanted to decouple payment.

I am going to take that at face-value=

Jon, that does not seem clear to me:

We pass your suggestion, my friend and I add our green business to the directory immediately:

Than what happens?

Can we develop a group etc. like an NGO currently can?  Can we access all site features?  Are their any restrictions on what we can do on WE?  What prevents us from accessing the site like an NGO, what prevents us from doing what we want on WE?  Where is this written/ stated?  Who decides this?

If we can’t do this now: will we be able to do it in the future?  Will we have to pay?  Who decides this?  NCI, YOU……………. where do me and my friend get our say? 

That should be established before For-Profits are added right?

Why can’t our business have rich functionality/ disk space the moment we open up the directory to For-Profits? 

Why can’t we start a group, develop a webpage complete with utube links, loud graphics etc., and send invite messages to all regional NGO’s that are currently on WiserEarth.org?  It could be a private group.  What will you do about it?  Remove the group?  On what grounds? 

What is the purpose for allowing For-Profits in the directory if they cannot access all WE features?  Can they access all WE features for free under your plan?

If we join the directory tomorrow—in two weeks will there be an understanding that we can access rich functionality/ obtain more disk space/ develop a group upon a payment plan with NCI?  Who decides this?  What is the payment plan? Whose money is it?  Who decides how the money is spent?

Concerns (previously stated, referred-to… and seemingly ignored… thanks for the time to read though them now…)

BOWO:

This also includes the way democracy has been so compromized by corporate and wealthy-people's financial contributions. The resulting effect is that not only people and planet have less and less say in how things go, both are increasingly becoming the tools of our own tools and institutions.

…

Financial contributions will eventually need to be made public--perhaps along side current type of contribution (edits, additions, comments) in the browse people page. Thus, the money people contribute will only be a part of the measure of their contribution. Even if someone donated a million dollars (amen...) that does not mean he/she can say and do whatever he wants in WiserEarth, but he/she will surely earn the respect of the community for the contribution.

…

This will ensure that transparency is maintained, integrity uncompromised, accountability upheld, and most importantly, power reside in the community of people and not in institutions. On the flip side, there will come the need for NCI to disclose the financial report in regard to the use of funding from the communiy (and perhaps also from the so called WiserEarth Partners).

…

Regarding JP's (JPMS) comment on this:

"As long as there is a way to differentiate for profit and public agencies from the non-profit and non-public agencies, I think it makes sense to invite them in to the community. But there should also be a mechanism by which people who make it part of life to monitor organizations would be able to allert the WiserEarth community about some questionable organizations, since names don't always indicate what an organization is really about"

I was thinking of creating a "Public" and "Open" group called something like WiserEarth Plaza or WiserEarth Community Center, where all WiserEarthlings are encouraged or even obligated to join upon registration. This group should be created and administered by WiserEarth administrators and serve as a place where any community member can be in touch with the whole community for any needs (including event promotion, etc.). Group guidelines should be establish however to prevent misuse/abuse.

This group can also be used to facilitate JP's suggestion above and address part of Camilla's comment: "I like the idea of having 2 separate entities who would at the same time be connected. From a metaphorical perspective, we could compare it to a village. It would mean that there would be a village square (or commons) which would be fully inclusive and open to all who would like to meet there, but that there would be different families who live in different houses in the village (with different needs (and facilities) but who would have the ability to make the connections with everyone else and help to participate in and build the commons."

Anyone in support of this?

JT: Bowo I am in complete support of that: runs parallel to my idea / Brad’s thought process of having a group established, where an NGO/ WiserEarth user could sponsor/ make a case for a prospective For-Profit prior to their inclusion…

4. On "vetting committee"/"filtering mechanism" to screen for-profits

Jerome (jerdanraf):

"Some clear rules have to be defined in order not to list each and every company that think it deserves it. A multi stake holder vetting commitee could help."

Roger ():

"My vote is to include the two new types of entities provided that we explicitly exclude any special payment by the new groups and that we do implement the filtering mechanism before the new groups are allowed in."

The first filter would be the content standards. The second one should be a collective monitoring effort by the entire community of users (especially those with editor and administrator privilege) and can be greatly facilitated by the formation of the forementioned WiserEarth Community Center group.

JT = I have some concerns about the monitoring process currently; see institutional accountability issues etc.

…

BOWO:

7. Request to Jon

As a general guideline in posting suggestion in our WiserEarth suggestion group, we request that when possible, the poster of the suggestion spend some time to review the emerging discussion and summarize them in the about section so that both old-timers and new-comers to the discussion can have an idea of what have been discussed and what conclusions have been reached.

Can you kindly do this for us? (I've prepared the space and pointers above). I'd of course be happy to help summarize the discussion. But just to conform with the guideline first. Big thanks.

JT= @Jon = please note that I found it kind of offensive – to be blunt -- that you ignored bowo, as I second the concerns he voiced/ and others voiced.  It is all on this discussion, so is easy to find.

I also find it offensive that you and Melinda ignored my comments/ questions on the implementation page.

BOWO cont.

This would be something that will provide valuable guidance on screening businesses that should be included in WiserEarth and address a part of Michael Spalding's (michael) reservations for not including for-profits (quoted at the bottom from the community discussion around this topic ).

As I alwas liked the concept of WiserEarth's sister sites: WiserBusiness and WiserGovernment (click here for a PDF overview), and how they will eventually coalesce with WiserEarth into personal, local and regional hubs, I thus support the inclusion of for-profits and gov. agencies here as you suggested. I also acknowledged how many projects to create positive change must be multi-stakeholders by necessity.

Before adding my vote, there are things that I think needs answers/clarifications:

• Will this mean that WiserBusiness.org and WiserGovernment.org will be cancelled and efforts will be focused into WiserEarth? (I also quoted Paul's comment in that discussion thread at the bottom)
• If the answer is yes, what were the pros-cons and advantages-disadvantages for this proposal as compared to the original plan?
• How will this change WiserEarth's About Us, Principles, Community Guidelines, and most importantly Content Standards? (perhaps this will be included in the templates page?)
• How do we really know that the for-profits and gov. agencies are the ones that are "working toward a just and sustainable world created by community"?
• Since this seems like a major change for WiserEarth and in the absence of a community decision making tool, should all community members be notified of this? So they could at least know about it and perhaps contribute their thoughts?
• As one safety measure, do you think we should limit for-profits and gov. agencies only to those that are involved in a multi-stakeholder project? Thereby allowing the non-profit and community involved in the project to "vouch" for the values and practices of those for-profits and gov. agencies (for example, in the form of comments to the organization page).

Again, thank you for your thoughtful response Jon. I look forward too to our working together.

@JP

I think I'm in support of adding an indication of organization type, just to make things clearer. Perhaps a small icon somewhere in the organization's page? (which will also show up in "Organizations" listing within groups).

This is Michael's response to Duane on why he thought WiserEarth is not ready to include for-profits.

Hey Duane,

Thanks for your input on this topic. While it could be a while before definitive direction is taken, your comments will help shape the direction and deliberations. From being involved in this discussion for years, and also as a member of WiserEarth, maybe I can articulate the current justification for not including for-profits:

1) Our culture already showers attention and resources on business and government, only two pillars of our society. The third pillar, civil society, gets almost no attention. WiserEarth was originally developed to dedicate a space to them. A place they can call their own. Once the floodgates open, for-profits could come to dominate this space and dilute the space for civil society.

2) WiserEarth is already selective about the non-profits that are entered. It focuses on proactive organizations that address root causes and tries to avoid reactive, palliative organizations. It may be difficult to justify why some for-profits are included, and some non-profits are not included.

To avoid this, at least two technical features need to be improved on WiserEarth before for-profits can be safety integrated.

1) A user should have powerful filtering results to include or exclude for-profits. Our filters don't include that at this point.

2) More challenging, the metrics by which for-profits AND non-profits are judged, needs to be articulated. The staff of NCI has started this process, but the metrics should truly be developed by the community at large. This presents a further challenge: How does the community decide? At this point, WiserEarth has no system for rating or voting and until that happens, big decisions such as this will be left to early adopters with strong opinions.

I know this isn't exactly what you are looking for, but I hope to clarify that for-profits are not included, simply because they are for-profits. A precautionary principle has been adopted, so if or when for-profits are included, it is done correctly.

Best,
Michael

--------

May we know more info other than the proposal and the community discussions linked above? Especially the ones in the WiserEarth Partners meeting(s)...

For practicality and eventuality reasons, I see no wrong in integrating WiserBusiness.org and WiserGovernment.org into WiserEarth. Provided that we install appropriate safety measures as probed in the questions page.

• Technically speaking, since this suggestion is posted in the Suggestions group, what number of votes is expected before this is implemented? (by the way, do you seek votes the way other suggestion are voted?)
• Will all 12.893 current users (as of today May 10, 2008) be notified of this, so they could weigh in their opinion or at least know about it?
• Or will this decision be implemented based on the agreement between NCI, the WiserEarth Partners, and some amount of community deliberation here?

Info for readers of this page:

This is a short description of what constitutes WIserEarth Partners

--> http://www.naturalcapital.org/wiserpartners.htm

Are there more info out there that the community should know about? Just to conform with WiserEarth's transparency principle which states that "WiserEarth is open to full public scrutiny".

JON WROTE: At the WiserEarth Partners meeting it was agreed that WiserEarth is open and the scope can be expanded to include for profit entities and government agencies.

JT= Jon, perhaps you can explain to us who a partner is etc.?  Thanks.  There are plenty of unanswered questions/ concerns here; that your plan / comments do not address.

I do appreciate the time of yourself/ any NCI members who chose to try to address these issues.  I realize there is a lot there.  I just feel the system is real faulty: what is stopping me from getting a hundred people I know to jump on here and offer support for my wiserbusiness plan?  Do you know what I mean?  Would it get implemented? 

Your perspective: the NCI/ Interra Project network/ community is not necessarily consistent with the way everyone else is viewing this matter. 

I honestly have to go to work = this is not the type of work that I do (not meant in sarcasm: I truly need to go to work) = and I will not be able to get on a computer till Sunday at the earliest...  So for the sake of respect I would request you do not implement this plan until I have an opportunity to further understand your process/ plans etc.

Because I am honestly still not clear on how your plan, when implemented = could evolve etc., and who decides...

Thanks

JT

Bowo: banning me from the site is not the solution; addressing the concerns is the solution.  Jon just answered the question; he has support of WE regardless of inclusion of Melinda's payment plan.

My confusion stems from the fact that he wrote that he was against the payment plan, than yielded and said basic access could be free and more rich functionality/ disk space could come at a price...

To me the issues presented in this wiki are not clear right now.  I think those are communication issues that need to be resolved, and are getting resolved as a product of my asking questions...  My language seems confrontational because I have to keep asking the same thing over and over again to get an answer...

And BOWO: if you are critical and constructive: than why were your voiced concerns not addressed by Jon and NCI re this process, the partners etc.?  Is your method of communicating effective?

I think Melinda's idea of making money off this is OK = I just want the specifics clarified and clearly communicated before any commitment is made for including For-Profits...  I don't think that is unreasonable??

If the decision is to not charge them: which seems to be the current public opinion, than that should be voted on prior to implementation of Jon's Suggestion re including For Profits==

If we vote yes, I add my Green Business Y to the network tomorrow: invite them on to wiserearth = they try to use the site than run into Melinda's payment scheme... I think we need to just be specific about what is the plan, what we are voting on, what is being disscussed.

Peace

JT

I may have confused you.  I cannot speak for Melinda but I suspect she is concerned with making sure that WE can sustain itself.  So she might of thought that we could charge businesses if we included them.  I am not in favorf of this but have said that I am open to further conversation about it. I have not discussed or gained support for any economic activity with WE. The support I was referring to was the intention to include business and public agencies.

I agree with you that someone who cares enough, Melinda, you, et. al. should start a separate Wiki page suggestion to discuss ways to raise money for WE.   My point is that it is a distinct suggestion. I don't know what the Melinda/Jon proposal is that you are referring to.

i think your suggestion has obvious flaws:

i think everything is connected: from my past post;

The Issue that everyone is concerned with is -- not the inclusion of For Profits -- but the payment specifics (whether or not they pay/ how they will pay etc.).  This wiki focuses on the inclusion of For Profits, and seems to intentionally create a space for the payment specifics to exist in a vague and undefined way.  That is not good. 

the network has value : my impression is that NCI is going to take the value of the network and sell it in a plan consistent with Melinda's modifications of your proposal...

for personal gain:

NCI -- the fiction that is your fiscal agent (I am not trying to be impolite, just illustrate my perspective)-- will determine how that money is used, not the community. 

It is the communities value that is getting sold: thus it is their money.  They should have control over it. 

This whole process needs to be cleared up... for the sake of VALUES.

If someone wrote a check to you and NCI decided to tell you what to do with the check what would you think?  You should decide correct?  It is your money.

I think it is the communities money.  No wiseruser/ NGO got on this site with the idea that their value was going to be used/ sold by NCI for personal gain: we all got on this site because it is a great resource etc.

Lots of great arguments for not including businesses out there, or monitoring their entrance to this site.

I still feel my plan is the solution.  It just needs to be looked at more carefully in relation to the concerns and needs of all parties.

and jon= I am not "getting on someones website" and accusing them of anything.... the system is open for disscusion and public scrutiny... that is what I am offering, I have added plenty of resources / orgs etc. been active in a productive way here...

my perspective is different than yours though.  that doesn't make my perspective -- or the other wiserearth users who have brought up similar issues -- less valuable than your perspective, just because you feel that the issues are not relevant to your personally.  or because they get in the way of your objective/ agenda.

I did not create the system: I just am trying to make it work.

shouldn't value issues with the current system be addressed before adding a change to the system -- that opens the system up to further ...

corruption of network

mis-alignment of values

... it is a murky world of for-profits... I just think your plan/ combined with melindas should be more defined/ modified: that is what i was trying to do with the wiserbusiness cert wiki.... and that is what i was hoping to do with this disscusion...

clearly trying to help; otherwise i would not have spent the time.

I think your plan needs to be improved/ clarified.

That is what I tried to do: see the wiserbusiness cert wiki.: a community owned/ community moderated filter process...

my question to you jon would be:

1.why would my idea not work for you...? (and Melinda: why would it not work for Melinda?)

2. and .... why would my idea not work for you ..... if you are willing to let Melinda's plan work for you?

THE POINT IS :

The Issue that everyone is concerned with is -- not the inclusion of For Profits -- but the payment specifics (whether or not they pay/ how they will pay etc.).  This wiki focuses on the inclusion of For Profits, and seems to intentionally create a space for the payment specifics to exist in a vague and undefined way.  That is not good. 

That is my critical reading assessment of what is occuring here.  Maybe it is a mistake: if that is the case we should cooperatively try to fix it... and come up with a clear proposal that addresses all the concerns that have been voiced thus far.

My creative analogy would be visually focusing on a lead cyclist who is taking the brunt of the wind, where the more lethal competitive cyclist is riding his wheel: drafting and unnoticed. 

I want to get that lethal competitor who is drafting -- the payment specifics/ and potential for payment specifics to evolve etc -- under the microscope of public scrutiny and out in the open wind. 

I think we need to separate the issues now and make it clear ... or adopt a plan like I mentioned in my WiserBusiness Cert Wiki. == for the sake of Values, not for $.

(And what about BOWO's concerns/ Michael's concerns...)

peace

My intent in writing again is to reach resolution on the suggestion that I made to include private and public sector organizations in the community directory. I have reviewed the community guidelines and I don't think they are as relevant to this suggestion as the WiserEarth Content Standards.

In the same way that the content standards carve out a subset of Civil Society as "Sustainable Civil Society" that was the approach I was taking to the other public and private sectors. I think we can let our values -- i.e. what we believe to be important -- guide the expanded scope and carve out a subset of businesses and public agencies that can included in the directory.

------

JT, the community guidelines references being polite, civil and building community. You reference NCI as if they were a person and you are accusing NCI of doing harm.I don't think you understand my point when I say that only people contribute to NCI. NCI is a fiction. It exists by declaration.

It seems extermely impolite to come to someones site that you are welcomed at and be so accusatory. It may be the way I was brought up but it rubs me wrong. I have gratitude and appreciation for all it took to make this available. I bet you do too. I suspect that you are pointing out what you see as inconsistencies because you care. So be it. I suggest we do it in a civil and polite way that helps build community.

I also want to clarify my role with NCI. I have never been paid by WE. I am a volunteer. I have known personally a number of people that are involved with WE. I have been involved prior to when WE was launched. It was always in the plan to include the other sectors. It was just a matter of time.

The reason that the time is now is that the multi-stakeholder initiatives that we are involved with will not continue on WE unless the community directory is inclusive of all the parties that are working together toward a just and sustainable world.

I remain committed to addressing concerns about including For Profit and Public Agencies. What are they?

I agree with Jon - we should decouple any financial payments from inclusion in WE Directory. There are a couple of reasons:

• It sets up the wrong incentive / or perception - i.e. payment = inclusion
• Perfectly aligned for-profits are unlikely to pay for listing when there are relatively few benefits to be had at least from a marketing perspective. We are up against Coop America / Green Pages and the like, i.e. well respected and well used marketing and outreach sites for responsible businesses. So we would end up with no listings - even the ones the community wants to put in.
  
• No government agency is going to pay for a listing, in fact many would be barred from doing so
• Finally, my experience has been that social goods / non-profits such as WiserEarth are very rarely funded substantially from corporate revenue streams. Even well connected non-profits, such as The Nature Conservancy, with a reputation that corporates want to align with, generate only 7% of their funding this way (see page 54 of TNC Annual Report). We shouldn't expect corporate funding streams to amount to much and may be not be worth the hassle in terms of reputation risk for WE, the cost of developing for-profit specific offerings (e.g. specialize homepages) and the cost of managing / servicing these 'customers'.

Without reading through this entire thread, I'd like to offer my perspective...

On a daily basis, I work with for-profit businesses whose missions are incredibly similar to many of the non-profs with which we are all familiar. These businesses were founded by leaders who are out trying to change the world for the positive by positively changing business for good. Many of these leaders come from a non-profit background and "changed teams" when they felt they could make a bigger difference in the for-profit world.

The fundamental shifts in which these leaders partake in on a daily basis are an influential and educational tool for those who wonder how they can make a difference in their own life and in their own businesses.

Why not share these tools with the public so that we can expedite the change we all seek?