Re: Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "[hackers-il] Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> That has made me thinking: why can't there be a perfect workplace in Israel?
> Here's how I define perfect:
> 
> 1. Integrates the best of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ , 
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ,
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ ,
> http://www.paulgraham.com/ , etc.

Just a thought:

Maybe these issues are not as important as you think?
Some of the most interesting small projects that I ever worked on didn't
follow any of these rules. What *is* bad, however, are employers that try
to stuff their own (often stupid) software management techniques down your
throat. I don't mind that my employer doesn't use a specific software
management technique, but it does bother me when the technical team wishes
to use some technique, and this wish is vetoed by the management (for legal
reasons, legacy reasons, investment in some commercial software, etc.).

I believe it is more important what you work on, and *why* you work on it.

The "what" is obvious, but the "why" is also important: Are you working on
something because you believe it's important (and perhaps even helped to
invent), or because some clueless client or equally-clueless bossed "dropped"
some stupid requirement on you? Are you working toward a long-term goal you
can understand and believe in, or are you being "blown in the wind" (using
the ship metaphore I used in previous post) each month doing whatever things
your boss, clients, or whatever, wants you to do this month?

For me, the perfect employer would have me working toward long-term goals I
believe in.

This is also why I like working on free software (and especially Hspell),
which allows me to work in exactly this manner. Users' requirements are
always in the background, but I'm free to choose my own priorities and own
long-term goal, and stick to that goal (which in the Hspell case, has been
more-or-less been done).

> 3. We will work on open source software exclusively. Not just GPL - but also
> ,and often preferably, LGPL or MIT X11. The less other people and companies 
> ask
> us for permission to use our software - the better.

Is this going to be a company producing software, a services company (like
consulting, etc.), a company for which software is just a part of (e.g.,
a hardware company, like TiVo), or what?

From most of your description, it sounds like you're talking about a software
company. If this is the case, I don't understand your business plan. How is
this company to profit? What is it selling if everything it works on is open
source?

> 5. We will allow free choice of language.

Programming language, or human language?
What if one employee decides to talk in French and program in Fortran - how
will anybody else understand him?
Of course, there should be diversity (not the 100% Java environment I
currently work in) but "free choice" is a little too strong.

> 6. Everyone can become a member of the company simply by adding himself to 
> the wiki. He or she will not get paid immediately, but they still can consider
> themselves part of the company.

Ah?
You lost me here. What does "being part of the company" mean, if you don't
get paid?

> These are just a few examples - there are many more. But the point is that
> I believe such a company will not only be very popular, but can in fact be
> profitable. Paul Graham and ESR have rambled a lot about how people who are
> left to do what they want to do, rather than what they feel they are obliged
> to do, produce superior results to those who don't. Such a company can be a
> very powerful force, even in comparison to Google. And most importantly it
> will be a great employer to work for.

Free Software is an excellent proof of the superior results of the processes
you describe. However, it doesn't provide much proof that you can profit from
it by selling software (which it sounds like you're planning).
We already have "Free Software", and people can "just add themselves to
Free Software" at will and work on what they want. The only question is how
your company fits into this puzzle.

> I suppose that once someone has signed a contract, we can tell him to give
> us a percentage of all the consultancy/contracting he's been doing. Or we can

It sounds like you're describing now the "partnership" model we once discussed,
of creating a free-software/consulting firm which works very similarly to how
law firms currently work. This is indeed a good idea, and one which I'd like
to see materialize. But it is very far from what you described above...


-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Apr 12 2007, 24 Nisan 5767
nyh-TS7m/[email protected]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |are not my own.