OVNs and expenses

@jimanastassiou - I still think you are misinterpreting the case with Steve. I don't think he has done any commercial activities that relied on anything from Sensorica. He has tried to do so, and has tried to bring them to Sensorica. They have not brought in any money.

He has had one successful initiative, the Tanzanian Innovation Project, for which we set up an instance of NRP, for which he wanted to use Sensorica's OVN methods, but neither the software nor those methods were ever used by that project, and Steve's involvement with the project is finished. That's as close as any of Steve's projects ever came to actually using Sensorica anything, as far as I know. And none of the project leads came through Sensorica, they came from Steve to Sensorica. So if anything had come of them, Steve would be due something for bringing in the project, according to one of Tibi's recent proposals. (Although I doubt that he would want that.)

The new projects he has in the wings may use Sensorica methods, knowledge, and maybe even NRP software. Lynn and I may be involved in one of them. If we do, we intend to properly cite Sensorica knowledge and methods. It will be cited in a value equation that we may not control, so it may not be 5%. If we get any money from it, we will pass on whatever is the agreed upon percentage. (That will be on top of whatever comes from the citation.)

@bobhaugen I didn't wan't to give the impression that I assumed Steve did. I have only skimmed through some of the posts of his activities in Tanzania so I don't really know much about the initiative. I was only analyzing the situation and trying to find the reason why Tibi would make such an accusation. I am in no position to make a judgement call and wouldn't wan't to either. Maybe I shouldn't play the mediator, but I believe we should solve these little problems now and put rules in place to avoid future confrontations.

@jimanastassiou I want to say that I do agree with and support your concept of the obligation to give back to Sensorica in the way you stated it. (Although this does not apply to Steve.)

P.S. When you're ready, you can make a proposal in this loomio discussion and people can vote. Button near the top.

I never acused Steve of anything. I am just using his case as an example of a SENSORICA affiliate who is using SENSORICA and other sensoricans' time in his consulting practices. I am just describing a real situation based on facts, and trying to compare it with the new moral standards proposed. The best is to hear from Steve himself. So please, no accusatory language, let's stick to facts and technical issues.

@tiberiusbrastavice - the problem is that you are inverting the situation. Steve was trying to bring projects to Sensorica that would result in income for Sensoricans. He was not trying to use Sensoricans' time for his consulting practice, which is winding down anyway.

Gee, @tiberiusbrastavice I don't know how to respond to you that gets you off the track you're on which is quite a departure from the road we've traveled together for several years, now.

I have included you in EVERY venture I've been in to promote value networks, in general, and SENSORICA as an open value network more specifically. This includes personally introducing you to key administration at Ohio State, leaders and members of the USDA grant team for LocalFoodSystems.org, and members of a wide range of localized business ecosystems centered on food and agriculture in Ohio as well as founders of makerspaces, training centers, startups, etc., in the US and internationally; partnering with you in the formation of the Greener Acres Value Network (GAVNet) wherein you are charter member and co-administrator to this day; writing you / SENSORICA into grant proposals to the USDA in 2012 and last year; developing an innovation portfolio framework based on OVN principles for application within both the private and public sectors; associating the NRP / VAS with the iAGRI Innovation Portfolio process in Tanzania in an effort to open the door for funding to underwrite development of OVN modules for international development; building slide decks that showcase GAVNet and SENSORICA in illustrating the flow of innovation in an OVN environment; and most recently, initiating a contracting process for the AAVP project at Ohio State and a prospective private sector client in based in Cincinnati. Unfortunately, none of these have panned out in terms of funded projects. We don't have a final verdict on a couple of them, so the tide may turn.

So, let me pose some questions to you: Over the past five years, have you used my creative output, my connections, my reputation, my funded projects, my prospective projects to develop the principles in action for SENSORICA and perhaps even your individual professional development? Have I ever suggested that you pay me for these services much less invoiced you / SENSORICA for them? Have I diligently documented my contributions to SENSORICA projects or initiatives on the NRP / VAS system so I would be entitled to a slice of the pie when allocating gains? Have I requested support from you and / or other SENSORICA members that I incorporated into the work of my business for which I was paid and did not acknowledge you appropriately?

In terms of parity, I feel as though I have done my share to support the concept of an OVN and I will continue to do so because I believe it represents an essential part of the solution for the world. In terms of whatever moral code you choose to impose, I do not feel as though I owe you or SENSORICA members anything.

I close with a statement made by Jim A. a couple of weeks ago that hits the nail on the head as far as the elephant in the room:

"It is sad to see primal human behaviour and aggression surface when money is involved, a primitive reflex and natural instinct that for me is the root of all evil and the corrupt capitalist structure the world has adopted."

So let's speak in technical terms. We need some criteria to distinguish personal gains from contributions to the network. This is how I see it.
If a consultant uses knowledge, methodologies, templates developed by the network, the OVN model, network success stories, other network affiliates' time, etc. in order to increase his/her market value as a consultant, in order to negotiate a contract, in order to advance his/her mandate for a contract, this person has personal gains from the network.
On the other side, if the consultant has already an established contract and brings SENSORICA in for exposure, to generate revenue for other affiliates, etc., without directly impacting the already established gains from this contract, then the person is contributing to the network.
I took Steve's case, because in my opinion it has a mix of both. Bob only perceives the second part. My long experience with Steve, as he pointed out in his post, is that he has found a way to market skills and tools and methods developed by the network, and in my opinion, he has been the most successful sensorican in doing so. I do admire Steve's skills. At the same time, I do think that Steve's case is a very interesting one for this debate, because it does offer a mix of personal benefits and help for the network.

Whoa.... I probably should not jump in, but here I go...

What is happening to you, Tibi?

From where I sit, it seems that Sensorica and you personally has gained through your interactions with Steve, much more than Steve has.

And it seems that the questions you are asking is:

If I introduce Sensorica to one of my contact that has the potential to benefit Sensorica, do I now owe something to Sensorica?

If I include sensorica in one of my proposal to get funding that will be shared with sensorica, do I owe something to sensorica?

In my opinion, and I can also say in common business practices, the answer to both question is a resounding NO.

FD

@lynnfoster @bobhaugen @stevebosserman
Let's take this step by step.

1. I proposed a criterion which allows us to distinguish between benefiting from the network or contributing to the network. Do we agree with it or not?

2. Yes, reality is complex, and in some situations we get both at the same time.

3. There is no way to quantify how much benefit or contribution in a given situation.

So yes, things aren't clear and they are complex, this is why, building on Jim's idea, I am using the expression "moral standard"

The fact of the matter here is that in SENSORICA the infrastructure is maintained by a single individual at 95% of its financial costs. We can look at this anomaly from a moral perspective. Why others don't contribute more financially? The next question is who should contribute more financially? Are there affiliates who benefit something, even though they also contribute? Should they feel morally obliged to contribute something to monthly bills, or at least to get involved in initiatives meant to get more funding?

In the end, we want to see if we can solve SENSORICA's anomaly of having a single individual maintaining the infrastructure at 95% of its financial costs by using moral criteria coupled to a reputation system.
This may not be possible if people always react badly to the moral argument, taking into consideration that proving that an individual extracts tangible personal gains from the network is not alway easy. In other words, the financial gains the network gets might be overshadowed by the bad blood every such discussion creates within the network.
Or it might work...
This is another experiment in SENSORICA's evolution. This is how we solved our problems, by accumulating facts, and one day we analyze them.

Question: Do you at least consider this as a "legit" path to be explored in search for a solution?