I said from the start it would be egos clashing that will grind this whole thing to a halt. We don't even have a cohesive idea of WHAT we're trying to accomplish. If everybody here, at the beginning of this discussion, was so important to the group and everyone's contribution would guarantee them some sort of equal share, then why are we all fighting and why were my suggestions justification for someone to insult not only me but my invention?
Maybe it's my style of writing? I'm much different in person, but this method of communication is preferable to me- there's no one talking over each other and everybody gets a chance to be heard (but not always read and not always understood). granted I don't always write my ideas clearly enough or concisely enough and someone can miss understand or misinterpret what I wrote. One letter can change the whole meaning to someone and an argument can ensue. Or someone may not like something else personally about me for some reason or another. I try to keep things lighthearted and usually when I don't respond to something it's because I may agree or just not have anything to say about it. I responded to G's rules. If anybody read that they'll know those were the things I had a problem with. The rest could either be worked out later or dropped due to irrelevance.
I thought Scrup was doing a great job shuffling the deck and keeping things in order. I want to respond to something he just said and then take a break.
"Iâ€™m a big fan of setting something aside when youâ€™ve reached a snag, because when you come back and pick it up again, the chances are that you will be able to tackle it. Why donâ€™t we just give it a rest for now, enjoy the holiday, and come back with more productive attitudes? Yes-Yes? "
Gosh and I recall a time when the sociocratic model could be just what this grioup needed. Out-of-the-box-thinking right? Not too constrictive or restrictive to a dynamic flow of ideas. Remember that time? Those were the good old days. We were all so happy back then... or were we just naive?
This snag Scrup mentioned is a fundamental flaw in this neo-entrepreneurial system. I want to work on projects that can be done within four months and showing returns within a year. Some people want to add components to the process and go through a lengthy voting process like any other inventor's mill with arbitrary ideas wasting valuable time, even postponing the process by going through the USPTO as an invention team. I see the group as peer mentors to people who need help in specific areas to get their product on the shelves and will work out a deal for compensation to the group. Some folks want to ignore them because the whole idea is too "cheesy" or the invention is uninspiring. They're acting like reality tv judges.
Just because I offered two suggestions for products to work with doesn't mean I was pirating the group. I even asked if anyone wanted to work on it separately. The only other project mentioned was the plastic recycling deal. I don't think there is any real reason for me to be perceived as someone who should be kicked out by majority vote aka lynch mob, but I don't think this is my cup of tea so I will humbly bow out.
Don't let this pathological blog-rage become part of the nuts and bolts of the discussion. It eventually turns the whole effort into a circus. I really don't even like to participate in mutual mind-masterbation. It is unproductive, but it is an important component of camraderie, good for morale and it's not as harmful as blog-rage.
How about this: everyone of you brilliant innovators come up with his/hers idea of how the think tank would work? Everybody read each others' and you can ask questions for clarification (not argumentation), or make suggestions. Then if everyone can agree on one well-defined group of bylaws and then come up with goals and then specific projects that can be done within a reasonable amount of time and don't forget- having a sh8tload of $ to work with, I think you have a winner here. It's too bad I quit, hope I don't regret it.