Jon I wasn't trying to be impolite: yes I am interested because I care...

 

At the same time= the current ambigious presentation of this proposal and your/ and Melinda's refusal to address the voiced concerns... seems to be blatantly disrespectful from my perspective, and seems to discourage participation and undermine efforts toward building community.

 

I do appreciate your taking the time to reply now though...

 

I think we agree with each other with regard to including private and public sectors in the directory -- we both want to do it, the sooner the better -- however my perception is that we do not agree on how to do it.

 

You might not be paid by NCI, but NCI supports/ is a financial partner with the Interra Project right? Their is no accusation their: it is just an observation/ perception...

 

I am not accusing NCI of doing harm: I am communicating that it is the perception of myself - and others - that that organization is currently present on this site in a very influential way that is inconsistent with the community guidelines in many ways... to me and others that have also taken the time to care enough to voice their concerns: that is a significant problem... that should be addressed...

 

I don't think that they are bad people: but from my perspective -- there exists a misalignment of values; inconsistencies rampant... 

 

Perhaps if someone could address/ explain the reason things are the way they are, and the reasons the inconsistencies are not getting addressed... I would understand and feel respected and part of the community (community guidelines).

 

The concerns are re your proposal are:

 

debasement of values

 

corruption of network

 

commercialization of site, (flow of $/ power through NCI furthers gap between NCI and community in terms of alignment of visions for wiserearth.)

 

unregulated / un monitored additions of businesses who should not belong here

 

furthers the on-site and real world gap between those in the loci of power, and those not

 

no payment plan / payment plan/ payment plan specifics should be established prior to any vote.  current ambigous presentation is a big problem from my perspective: reaffirms my last posts comments with regard to consistencies/ inconsitencies with values.... I would redirect you to my last post....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not so fast people, please take a look at the community guidelines and review the current position of NCI on many of the suggestion topics I have brought up with regard to Institutional Accountability and also my WiserBusiness proposal wiki.

 

Thanks for the comments/ links though, I am definitly new to this terrain and I do find it genuinely interesting...

 

Brad's comments run similar to my thought process with a WiserBusiness group/ cert process= where a WiserEarth user creates a wiki and makes a case for why their business should be on WiserEarth= example Jon's needs would be met no problem....

 

I am completely supportive of including For-Profits, and feel Gov entities should have free access... so Brittany (and others) I am 100% in agreement with you that the resources should be shared... as long as the values are consistent.

In fact I pretty much agree with your plan Jon. 

 

Just not your specific vision/ implementation plan specifics... and the way you seemed to give in to Melinda's demands for payment so easily, and how you specifically mentioned that you had already cleared the idea with NCI/ talked to Melinda about it -- the payment plan -- (off site) etc. ...  and the general style of NCI in relating/ addressing the concerns of non-NCI affiliated WiserEarth users.

 

It is really simple = my proposal is to create a figurative "screening room/ waiting room/ figurative purgatory" wiserbusiness group where prospective businesses go temporarily(in the form of a wiki), than they pass through and onto wiserearth directory/ can create a group etc...  Completely consistent to Brad's comment about having a NGO/ WE user 'sponsor' a for profit etc... make the case to the public...

 

What exactly is wrong with that process?

 

Why is this so urgent that this needs to be acted upon right now?  Why don't all parties that are pushing for immediate implementation just address Michael/ Bowo/ JT's concerns?  If you don't have the time to read thru and address the concerns; than your plan is not well-thought out and should not be implemented right?

 

My point is you are missing the point.  

 

Jon you -- and NCI -- are choosing not to address extremely relevant institutional accountability issues that need be addressed prior to any type of inclusion of For-Profits, paid or unpaid.  It all ties into the issue that is at the core of your inclusion of For-Profits = and that is VALUE, and VALUES ALIGNMENT.

 

If you -- and NCI -- are anxious to include For-Profits -- (you made it clear that NCI and you already agreed on this, so there is really no reason for all the members of the NCI network or your Interra Project Network to get on here and support this agenda with superficial comments saying how they "dont have the time to read through all this" etc.: the public already has a clear understanding that your networks (which include For Profit, NGO, GOV entities), many active and vocal members of WiserEarth.org all support the agenda you described....

 

Than you should realize that NCI is in the midst of some pretty serious VALUES concerns that have been voiced from the public = inclusive of myself, multiple non-NCI editors on this site who are extremely productive and loyal to wiserearth.org, and past NCI staff..... that all interrelate to this issue...

 

My plan addresses the concerns of all parties, your plan addresses the concerns you chose to pay attention to.  Both of our plans will accomplish the same thing = inclusion of For-Profits/ gov entities ASAP.

 

My plan just works to preserve the stated Values of Wiserearth.org and the community's rights, over a money/ influence-ruled NCI / NCI partner oligarchy.

 

If NCI's values are misaligned with the community == and they cant take 5 minutes and set up a vote procedure, (what about a secure survey procedure? I use one of those for work/ other activities to vote on, doesnt seem to be a problem... what is holding us back?) == and can't take the time to honor their community guidelines== than what is the point of saying that "only For Profits whose Values are aligned with the community" are welcome here?  Why is NCI not operating in a way consistent with the stated values of the community?

 

@angusparker

Coop america etc. are not even in our league, we do not need some UN program to tell us what to say = this network is the real thing; real people all over the world saying what they want about businesses etc. -- if a business does not want to go thru the cert process get listed here and pay something modest, than i say they dont need to be on the site.  that is VALUES.  You cant take 5 minutes and spend 50 $ than you do not care enough to belong here.

 

I know Jon Ramer is going to care enough to get some businesses on here, so I believe my plan would work great for him and his needs.

 

I disagree Angus = there will lots of listings, we just will not have a corrupted space overnight like we will with the current JON/ NCI plan.

 

And JON: to me the reason the FUNDING ISSUE is relevant to this current disscusion is because it has to do with power and influence over the development of this website....

 

The only reason I am pro-funding is because it seems to be the only way for regular WiserEarthlings to have any hope at shaping the future of this online community space...

 

Currently this website -- and its future -- is ruled by financial interests. 

 

Either you are a partner and you are donating to help, or you are staff and you are being paid to help -- either way financial contribution equals power equals influence.

 

And NCI has complete control, and they are not accountable.  That is a problem.

 

My plan addresses all the issues, and solves the problem. 

 

Thus my criticism is not empty: I am offering you a solution!

 

AND:

 

How do you tell who voted +1 etc.?  What did they vote on? on jon's plan, or the melinda/ jon ambigous / corrupt murky plan that it was evolving into ...

 

For inclusion with the potential of a payment plan, or no payment plan?  Prove to me that that decision was clear to them when they voted...

To me it is funny to read the language in this article: "Of course, accountability, integrity and transparency are critical to maintaining trust and confidence in all participants and the claims being made."

 

 And to look at how ambigious the whole thing is; with melinda interjecting with her payment idea/ jon playing the part of the resistor, than meekly agreeing etc. (to reiterate: you mentioned you both talked about this; salesforce reference etc.) ==

 

and the utter lack of integrity, accountability, transparency .... that NCI seems to be operating with (or rather without), and my complete distrust and lack of confidence in NCI. 

 

While I'm very interested in getting a voting system in place for Wiser Earth (those who know me know about Smartocracy which I have been proposing as a resource here), I believe that any such system is going to take time to adopt and thus should probably not hold up this process.

 

I am in favor of being inclusive of appropriate subsets of for-profit and governmental orgs, because "multi-stakeholder" can hardly be that without some of them.

 

Is there a way to have any such be "sponsored by" an NGO or WE participant? That would put the accountability for their presence here on them.

Hi JT

I am not sure what concerns you are talking about and I'm also not sure what "comprehensively" means.  I stand ready to address whatever I can.

 

The suggestion is to include in the directory the sub-set of public agencies and for profit companies that are working for a just and sustainable world.   I say sub-set because we are not including all NGOs.  The same values that defined the subset that we call "sustainable civil society" are the values that would guide the subset of public agencies and for profit entities as well.  This makes it congruent with the values that define participation in WE.

 

What businesses get when they join co-op america or b corp is very different then what I think they will get from WE. We is not a marketing tool.  We are interested in including them because they are working on projects focused on creating a just and sutainable world.

 

I suggest we decouple payment from inclusion in the directory.  There are other ways to address the funding for WE.  Lets take that up separately.

 

I suggest you take a look at the Global Reporting Initiative.Here is how they define what they do:

 

"The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has pioneered the development of the world’s most widely used sustainability reporting framework and is committed to its continuous improvement and application worldwide. This framework sets out the principles and indicators that organizations can use to measure and report their economic, environmental, and social performance."

 

Here is how they define who they are:

"The Global Reporting Initiative is a large multi-stakeholder network of thousands of experts, in dozens of countries worldwide, who participate in GRI’s working groups and governance bodies, use the GRI Guidelines to report, access information in GRI-based reports, or contribute to develop the Reporting Framework in other ways – both formally and informally."

 

They were started through the UN and are a non-profit based in Amsterdam.  They are inclusive of ALL sectors.  I think they are an ideal model for us to emmulate.

 

Jon

 

 

 

As it stands right now there is no reason to even consider this proposal or focus further time on it until:

 

Jon Ramer/ Melinda Kramer and any other NCI affiliates/ Partners who are pushing for/ supporting any version (paid or not paid) of including For-Profits need to comprehensively address the concerns the community has expressed/ my plan outlined in Implementation under Proposal 3 and in the wiki below/ the obvious need for a democratic voting tool to be established and utilized, etc.

 

I think the presence of any For-Profit entity on this site -- if they do not pay through a community-owned/ community filter process like I outlined in the WiserBusiness Certification Wiki/ Proposal 3 Implementation -- is a direct contradiction to the values of the community and will corrupt the network. 

 

It appears - from my perspective - to have the potential to be allowing the network to evolve into a tool for NCI and other NCI affiliates to use for personal gain at the expense of the community.

 

I feel like my skeleton plan offers the solutions that will address the concerns of all parties and further the values of the community, honor the community guidelines, allow For-Profits to enter WiserEarth; which will subsequently expand the movement Toward a Just and Sustainable World Created by Community, both on WiserEarth.org and in the real world... and provide the collective Wiser Community with an oppurtunity to co-create ourselves into an active/ influential financial-contributor/ "Partner" of NCI with regard to the development of this online community space. 

 

Look forward to hearing more.  I would like to be directed to more resources re the development of all things wiserbusiness if anyone can offer some links/ minutes to meetings/ records/ outline of who/ which organizations have been involved etc. etc.  Very interesting information to learn/think about! Thanks.

 

Jon R = from Implementation = "The ones that are are the ones we want to include. it seems like a missed opportunity to not include an organization such as google.org.  in fact the whole idea of businesses that are for-benefit and not just for-profit has led to a business certification resource called B Corp."

 

JT= Jon... does it cost $ for a business to be certified with B corp?  Does B corp work internationally?  How realistic is it for a responsible green business from a non-english speaking country to get certified with B corp?  Is their incentive?  Does a B Corp certification mean anything in... for example ...  Thailand or Russia?

 

What about charging a business that wants to use WE for a Wiser Business certification?  Once they are certified they can use the network like any other non-profit group.  That would give us a loophole to get around the Google mapping requirement that JustinTilson mentioned in the main forum disscussion (in addition: any wiserearth user can access the technology regardless whether or not their business is a member of the network -- a wiserbusiness-- so technically we are not charging for the google mapping, we are charging for the wiserbusiness certification/ access to the audience the wiserearth network offers, features of the site etc....) 

 

Jon Ramer mentioned B corp, I mentioned the Co-Op America Green Business Network... it got me to thinking :

 

Is there an international responsible-business certification resource that currently exists? 

 

Could Wiser Earth/ NCI fill this niche (is there a niche?)?

 

Could we charge them for the certification in a plan like Co-Op America, use guidelines similar to those used by B Corp? 

 

Once they have been certified they become a WiserBusiness and can enter the network like a non-profit organization....

 

Is NCI/ WiserEarth set-up to engage in this kind of work?  What would it take to set-up a certification program?  Is there a reason not to set up a WiserBusiness certification program?

 

Couldn't this be the solution to all the problems?  Wouldn't it be consistent with Melinda's vision for charging businesses in an effort to make wiserearth more sustainable financially... And at the same time honor all the core principles of the network?... And set up firm criteria for judging prospective businesses to determine whether or not they are welcome on Wiser Earth?

 

just an idea (so much for falling back from the disscusion)...

 

 

melinda: the more I think about it, the more I disagree with your following comment : "Jon, my thought was that these customized community groups would be in addition to business and governmental profiles (that are free and editable)."

 

if the wisercommunity approves a business -- it becomes a "wiserbusiness" and becomes part of this network:  thus their integrity is confirmed through association with this network (with WISER)... and being approved should be worth something $$; they become a member they PAY. 

 

If we decide to include for-profits at all they should submit an application to the open group Bowo/ Camilla described, if they are accepted they pay x $ in a plan similar to Co-Op America's Green Business Network Membership and are an official WiserBusiness...

 

personally I am going to fall back from this disscussion; I agree with Honore that this is an interesting issue, and after further thought I too am not sure where I stand on it....  

1. On people over institutions and on financial contributions

 

One of the real crisis of the world is the fact that humanity has conceded too much power to the tools and institutions we created. Think of political parties, bureaucracy, conventional for-profits, growth economy, the money system, etc. 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.

 

So, I agree with Jon's precautionary stance of "money changes everything", and acknowledge the fact that organizations (NGOs, for-profits, public agencies) don't have a voice, but people in those organizations do. I would say that as long as we have a good content standard for including/excluding certain for-profits and public agencies and then set up a good community guidelines and editorial policy, we can safely avoid unwanted consequences from this inclusion.

 

Regarding accepting money to fund the site, having placed proper screening standard, I would choose the path of "good people supporting good actions". Anyone from any type of organization who think they or their organizations benefit from being present in WiserEarth, or simply would love to see WiserEarth grow further, should be willing and perhaps be encouraged from time to time to contribute financially out of their own pocket (which includes salary/dividen from their institution). This "time to time reminder" will need to be more frequent for any user who added a for-profit into the database (I think this is a reasonable discrimination considering that there's no obligation to pay for listing it). We should encourage financial contribution based on people's conscience/intention and not on institution's marketing strategy.

 

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. And perhaps, his "responsible for-profit business" linked in his profile page will also receive additional interest from the community.

 

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).

 

Note: Drastic measures may need to be taken if the funding for WiserEarth is in an emergency state. Hope this is not the case though. As long as financially things are still ok, why should we risk dilluting WiserEarth with risky money coming from for-profit's marketing strategy?

 

 

2. On ensuring that people are people

 

I've noticed several instances where user profile are used for institutions, and was asked to be a friend of an institution two days ago. I know this is fairly common in MySpace, Facebook, etc., but if we want to create a community of people, WiserEarth should strictly limit user profile for people only. This should address Jon's conviction of "only people have a voice". Perhaps we should include this in the community guidelines.

 

 

3. On dealing with violation of content standards

 

Jon wrote: "I wonder, has any NGO been removed from WiserEarth as a result of people speaking up to say that they do not qualify? And if someone wants to remove an organization would being able to edit the profile and add a comment be sufficent to serve as an adequate self-correcting mechanism?"

 

I think I've seen several instances of organization entry being removed due to incompatibility with the content standards. Most are for-profits, and perhaps some NGOs. Mike (MichaelK) should know better about this as he was actively monitoring additions of organizations to the directory and have removed some of them.

 

By the way, WiserEarth editors have the privilege to change the status of a page, which among other include the removal of a page (can be organization, resource, event, job and wikipage). Admins have the extra privilege of removing users and groups. And all users have the ability to edit any unprotected (not marked as "locked") pages, comment on any page, and flag any user comment for suppression/hiding by editors or admins. These privileges along with good and clear content standards, community guidelines and editorial policy should in my opinion be sufficient as a self-correcting mechanism.

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

5. On changes to "governance" documents

 

Jon (jonramer):

"The guidelines distinguish a subset within civil society that is described as "sustainable civil society". I suggest that there are these subsets within the private sector (i.e. "corporate sustainability)" and public agencies (i.e. "sustainable public agencies") as well."

 

"So in the same way we are not opening the directory to include NGOs that are not pursuing the common goals of social and environmental justice; we are doing the same with businesses and public agencies. We are looking for the sectors within these two additional sectors that are advancing corporate responsibility, and are the public agencies that recognize their civic responsibility to properly manage public goods, resources and sustainable development."

 

JT (JTHESSERT):

I would reword it to say "across the global social/ environmental justice community"

 

I like Jon's suggestion, I think we need to elaborate further on this. Also liked JT's suggestion, perhaps we can change the "/" to "and".

 

To facilitate further collaborative editing, I've edited the "templates" page (changed it to "drafts") and listed/copied the following "governance" documents for discussion and any possible/necessary revisions:

1. WiserEarth Principles (v2 draft)
2. WiserEarth Content Standards (v2 draft)
3. WiserEarth Community Guidelines (v2 draft)
4. WiserEarth Community Roles (v2 draft)
5. WiserEarth Editorial Policy (v1 draft)

Please visit the drafts page to read instructions on how to collaborate in the editing process of each document.

 

 

6. Some answers

 

JT (JTHESSERT):
"And I would volunteer the question: will an accepted Business/ Gov. Entity have a separate place on the user profile than non-profits...? Like for example Resources vs. Organizations currently."

 

Not sure I understand this question. Jon's suggestion is to expand the "type" field in an organizations page to include the phrase "for-profit" and "public agency". Any user can post whatever they want in their profile page (including any info on any NGO, for-profits or public agencies) so long as they comply to WiserEarth's community guidelines.

 

JT (JTHESSERT):

"Can someone post the link to Michaels concerns re for Profit's dominating wiserearth? (that rogereaton referred to?)"

 

You can read my previous comment where Michael's full comment was quoted. His comment was made in the original discussion thread for this topic of including for-profit in WiserEarth.

 

 

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.

The view from the hills: I think I am still not clearly seeing the argument against Melinda's suggestion for developing a system for allowing For-Profit Entities to pay for their wiserspace? 

 

Currently any individual user can link on their profile to For-Profit Organizations they are associated with: even if the business is not officially in the wiser database... (they can gain a foothold presence here through an individual who is active on the site...)

 

So to me if we are going to let For-Profit's maintain a presence in the database it is logical/ intelligent to require them to pay: a preliminary structure could be a modest flat rate regardless of business size / activity: both here and in the real world... with the understanding that something more sophisticated can/ will develop= users from wiserbusinesses that become established here would be ideal canidates to work within a group to develop this pay system. 

 

If they chose to donate more -- as Roger Eaton mentions -- that is fine, but a flat rate sounds completely reasonable given the great oppurtunity socially-responsible businesses will have on WiserEarth to reach their ideal niche audience/ make invaluable connections... and if issues develop with regard to "commercialization of the site" in the future ... I am sure the wiser community will be able to work with NCI to bring the figurative ph balance / atmosphere / flavor back to what can only be described as wiser.   

 

Like JR says "If anyone will dominate, they will dominate as a person, not as an organization" ..

 

So I guess I would challenge for a more developed argument against having Businesses pay...

 

And I would volunteer the question: will an accepted Business/ Gov. Entity have a separate place on the user profile than non-profits...?  Like for example Resources vs. Organizations currently.  That would make sense for organizational purposes... and I assume Gov. will not pay right?

peace

 

 

@jonramer: Completely agree with your last comment. In addition, I would add that the social sector can't solve problems alone but needs the participation of responsible business and government.