Lately, I've been asked by several people:
To be honest, I don't want to publicly put anyone specifically down. I mean no malice with this that I have to say, I only speak from the heart from my own convictions, to advise you on where I was, and where I am now. I think actions speak louder than words, though.
TinkerDifferent came out of an idea that something better could be assembled, and built up, and improved. More than just a simple forum. An entire community, with leadership and values, and so on.
"Why even bother?" Well...
I had perceptions on things which have changed over the past 18 months. I thought I could execute a vision of a future community, which is living, and grows and changes over time. "Free from the pests purveying contradictory truths" playing through my head while I thought it through. It was a journey that started over a year prior.
I initiated the founding of the group and site, now known as TinkerDifferent. Through a collaborative effort, we established certain values and standards to which those involved, and the community, would need to adhere to, in order to be a free, open, transparent, and truly democratic community.
The entire community is in my thoughts at all times, and I hope that some of the goals of the project continue on, even elsewhere.
Let me summarize where the founders of TinkerDifferent came from, what transpired, and what is now.
In July of 2021, the great crash over at 68kmla resulted in a loss of important data which was not being managed well. As a result, a few people who had been affected voiced their concerns over the loss, and the mismanagement of community data. I had thought about a new forum platform, along with other components (not just a forum) for over a year prior, and that seemed like a good time to talk about putting ideas into action.
I reached out to James (JDW) and Kai, to organize a community effort. We began by email, and soon moved to Discord for more real-time communication. Many were brought into the discussions, at one point I think 15 of us were taking part. At the very beginning, these goals were outlined and agreed upon:
- An open and transparent site, run by the community, not an oligarchy or dictator.
- Funding models with transparency regarding how and where the money is being spent.
- A board of 5-7 individuals from the founders (at first, then people from the community over time), along with an advisory board of the remaining individuals, and those from the community who chose to participate.
- Term limits, with nominations and elections of board member positions (no perpetual kings).
- Specific roles, defined in a ‘constitution’ of sorts, which limits powers of people (to prevent the one person at the top from running the whole show).
- Guidelines for users that weren’t to be made into rigid rules to hammer over their heads.
We operated as a founders group without any real formal roles or organization from July through launch on October 31. We had talked about the procedure for a board, but never implemented it formerly. At the time of the launch, we had many heated discussions among founders regarding decisions and policies.
Participation in voting by founders was very difficult, as many who should voice their opinion and weigh in were silent, and absent. I saw the need to show the community that we were better than other communities, and grabbed the bull by the horns and started the process of forming the official board. The TD community needed a formal decision-making group of people, and they needed it right away.
I began by defining the number of positions, their roles, and the procedures involved. It was an open vote for each step, so that we could refine and mostly be in agreement as to the policies and the process. I began to do nearly all of the heavy lifting surrounding the entire process. Once I had realized that I was the main architect for the board and process, I felt it was unethical to also run for a voting position on the board (and possibly president). I didn’t feel it appropriate, especially with our goals in mind, to be in that position. It could be seen as trying to be a dictator. I didn’t like the optics of it, especially how the community might view it.
I reached out to several members of our founders group and told them about my ethical dilemma. I proposed that once the elections had happened, and the board was formed, that it be proposed that I become an honorary non-voting board member/chairman in order to be able to provide continued feedback, input, help, and also to keep the board transparent, and on-track with our initial forming desires. All of them said they had no issues, understood where I was coming from, and said they would propose it. All of them also became board members.
A few weeks went by, into November 2021, and I heard that the board had held board meeting(s) or discussions. I hadn’t been contacted by anyone regarding my request, or anything. The context of such meetings was kept private. I reached out about my position, and was told ‘it was decided against’.
Perplexed, I reached out in a more official manner, making my request more formal, to understand the situation better. I had thought that being the initial founder, participant in the entire drafting of the community, the organization, and the architect of the nominations, elections, and board, I had earned the trust and respect of the other founders, and of the board specifically, that such a request wouldn’t be hard to fulfill. I mean, it was a request for a non-voting seat at the table, to hear what was being discussed, and to provide feedback. In a community where transparency was the main goal, that seemed almost like an expectation of any founder, to be honest.
I was questioned as to ‘why’ and that ‘we can find no other examples of such arrangements’. It seemed that the board was happy to become an oligarchy. It upset me. Especially since I easily found examples online of such arrangements, and forwarded those examples on. What did I do to instantly lose the respect of those peers whom we shared goals with, following them becoming board members?
The board had reached out to me through one member. When I became angry and frustrated over the process of trying to justify my position (which I felt should have no need for justifying if I had the respect of the board), I made them aware of this. That member replied by saying he was
At that moment, I decided to walk away.
To me, the perceived arrogance of some on the board (based upon the actions), who decided that a simple ‘Founders’ badge under our names on the site, was sufficient for those who had worked alongside the members who now served as the official board, was far and away what we had wanted for the community. It was like an instant switch had been applied, and founding ideals were altered in an instant.
However, TD was set up as a democracy, and in the real world of democracies, they never turn out how they are envisioned. We are used to thinking very highly of democracy. Philosophy was highly suspicious of its other achievement, democracy.
In the dialogues of Plato, the founding father of Greek Philosophy – Socrates – is portrayed as hugely pessimistic about the whole business of democracy. In Book Six of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates falling into conversation with a character called Adeimantus and trying to get him to see the flaws of democracy by comparing a society to a ship.
Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm.
Socrates was to have first hand, catastrophic experience of the foolishness of voters. In 399 BC, the philosopher was put on trial on trumped up charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. A jury of 500 Athenians was invited to weigh up the case and decided by a narrow margin that the philosopher was guilty. He was put to death by hemlock in a process which is, for thinking people, every bit as tragic as crucifixion was.
The point here being, we set out to create a transparent and democratic community. One where everything was open to everyone. What came out of it all is quite the opposite in many ways. Board meetings held in a conclave manner (in secret). Board meeting minutes of only the first meeting posted online. No public accounting of what the current amount of funds are, how much it costs each month (although that part is finally online in a brief summary), and how long those funds will last at the given cost. No formal community town hall meetings, to allow the community an opportunity to hold the founders and board accountable. No advisory board, made up from those who wished to serve in that capacity. No transparency regarding when board meetings are, what is being discussed, avenues to submit agenda to be discussed, etc. No openness around discussions over the site, all done behind closed doors, even closed to other founders.
So when you take all of this into consideration, you can understand from my point of view, why I finally decided to just walked away. There was no point to me serving
in any advisory capacity if the board didn't want anyone outside of their own ‘Group of 7’ to participate. There was no point in me trying to lead such group if the board lacks the respect of my position, my thoughts, and my work.
Actions speak a lot louder than words. The actions of the board were to remain a conclave of 7, to sweep away the other founders, and to make it completely about them. Which is not what we were founded around.
I can move on from the situation, but I can’t restore the relationship that I thought we had. And as a result, I had withdrawn my request to be a non-voting member to sit on the board, and to lead an advisory committee so as to liaison between them and the official board. I stand by that decision, even today.
I lost significant respect for those who questioned my motivations, even though those motivations were for freedom and openness. If I sought true power, I would have run for the board and threw my name in for president. Why was my request for openness seen as a power move?
As a result, I have walked away from the TD community in general. I cannot endorse the organization that alienated all of the goals we had agreed upon from the very beginning.
It has been nearly one full year since the launch of TD. Transparency is effectively non-existent. I can’t endorse that, and promote it to the community. What exists today is a lie from the promotional video that we released. Simply reading the minutes of the first board meeting, whereby board members discussed possibly removing the term limits because ‘maybe people want to keep their positions’. That’s not what we agreed upon. To me, to even consider this for future debate questions their motivations.
And like I said, actions speak louder than words.
My action is to cease speaking about everything, altogether. So I have come to the end. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
To be honest, I don't want to publicly put anyone specifically down. I mean no malice with this that I have to say, I only speak from the heart from my own convictions, to advise you on where I was, and where I am now. I think actions speak louder than words, though.
TinkerDifferent came out of an idea that something better could be assembled, and built up, and improved. More than just a simple forum. An entire community, with leadership and values, and so on.
"Why even bother?" Well...
I had perceptions on things which have changed over the past 18 months. I thought I could execute a vision of a future community, which is living, and grows and changes over time. "Free from the pests purveying contradictory truths" playing through my head while I thought it through. It was a journey that started over a year prior.
I initiated the founding of the group and site, now known as TinkerDifferent. Through a collaborative effort, we established certain values and standards to which those involved, and the community, would need to adhere to, in order to be a free, open, transparent, and truly democratic community.
The entire community is in my thoughts at all times, and I hope that some of the goals of the project continue on, even elsewhere.
Let me summarize where the founders of TinkerDifferent came from, what transpired, and what is now.
In July of 2021, the great crash over at 68kmla resulted in a loss of important data which was not being managed well. As a result, a few people who had been affected voiced their concerns over the loss, and the mismanagement of community data. I had thought about a new forum platform, along with other components (not just a forum) for over a year prior, and that seemed like a good time to talk about putting ideas into action.
I reached out to James (JDW) and Kai, to organize a community effort. We began by email, and soon moved to Discord for more real-time communication. Many were brought into the discussions, at one point I think 15 of us were taking part. At the very beginning, these goals were outlined and agreed upon:
- An open and transparent site, run by the community, not an oligarchy or dictator.
- Funding models with transparency regarding how and where the money is being spent.
- A board of 5-7 individuals from the founders (at first, then people from the community over time), along with an advisory board of the remaining individuals, and those from the community who chose to participate.
- Term limits, with nominations and elections of board member positions (no perpetual kings).
- Specific roles, defined in a ‘constitution’ of sorts, which limits powers of people (to prevent the one person at the top from running the whole show).
- Guidelines for users that weren’t to be made into rigid rules to hammer over their heads.
We operated as a founders group without any real formal roles or organization from July through launch on October 31. We had talked about the procedure for a board, but never implemented it formerly. At the time of the launch, we had many heated discussions among founders regarding decisions and policies.
Participation in voting by founders was very difficult, as many who should voice their opinion and weigh in were silent, and absent. I saw the need to show the community that we were better than other communities, and grabbed the bull by the horns and started the process of forming the official board. The TD community needed a formal decision-making group of people, and they needed it right away.
I began by defining the number of positions, their roles, and the procedures involved. It was an open vote for each step, so that we could refine and mostly be in agreement as to the policies and the process. I began to do nearly all of the heavy lifting surrounding the entire process. Once I had realized that I was the main architect for the board and process, I felt it was unethical to also run for a voting position on the board (and possibly president). I didn’t feel it appropriate, especially with our goals in mind, to be in that position. It could be seen as trying to be a dictator. I didn’t like the optics of it, especially how the community might view it.
I reached out to several members of our founders group and told them about my ethical dilemma. I proposed that once the elections had happened, and the board was formed, that it be proposed that I become an honorary non-voting board member/chairman in order to be able to provide continued feedback, input, help, and also to keep the board transparent, and on-track with our initial forming desires. All of them said they had no issues, understood where I was coming from, and said they would propose it. All of them also became board members.
A few weeks went by, into November 2021, and I heard that the board had held board meeting(s) or discussions. I hadn’t been contacted by anyone regarding my request, or anything. The context of such meetings was kept private. I reached out about my position, and was told ‘it was decided against’.
Perplexed, I reached out in a more official manner, making my request more formal, to understand the situation better. I had thought that being the initial founder, participant in the entire drafting of the community, the organization, and the architect of the nominations, elections, and board, I had earned the trust and respect of the other founders, and of the board specifically, that such a request wouldn’t be hard to fulfill. I mean, it was a request for a non-voting seat at the table, to hear what was being discussed, and to provide feedback. In a community where transparency was the main goal, that seemed almost like an expectation of any founder, to be honest.
I was questioned as to ‘why’ and that ‘we can find no other examples of such arrangements’. It seemed that the board was happy to become an oligarchy. It upset me. Especially since I easily found examples online of such arrangements, and forwarded those examples on. What did I do to instantly lose the respect of those peers whom we shared goals with, following them becoming board members?
The board had reached out to me through one member. When I became angry and frustrated over the process of trying to justify my position (which I felt should have no need for justifying if I had the respect of the board), I made them aware of this. That member replied by saying he was
At that moment, I decided to walk away.
To me, the perceived arrogance of some on the board (based upon the actions), who decided that a simple ‘Founders’ badge under our names on the site, was sufficient for those who had worked alongside the members who now served as the official board, was far and away what we had wanted for the community. It was like an instant switch had been applied, and founding ideals were altered in an instant.
However, TD was set up as a democracy, and in the real world of democracies, they never turn out how they are envisioned. We are used to thinking very highly of democracy. Philosophy was highly suspicious of its other achievement, democracy.
In the dialogues of Plato, the founding father of Greek Philosophy – Socrates – is portrayed as hugely pessimistic about the whole business of democracy. In Book Six of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates falling into conversation with a character called Adeimantus and trying to get him to see the flaws of democracy by comparing a society to a ship.
Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm.
Socrates was to have first hand, catastrophic experience of the foolishness of voters. In 399 BC, the philosopher was put on trial on trumped up charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. A jury of 500 Athenians was invited to weigh up the case and decided by a narrow margin that the philosopher was guilty. He was put to death by hemlock in a process which is, for thinking people, every bit as tragic as crucifixion was.
The point here being, we set out to create a transparent and democratic community. One where everything was open to everyone. What came out of it all is quite the opposite in many ways. Board meetings held in a conclave manner (in secret). Board meeting minutes of only the first meeting posted online. No public accounting of what the current amount of funds are, how much it costs each month (although that part is finally online in a brief summary), and how long those funds will last at the given cost. No formal community town hall meetings, to allow the community an opportunity to hold the founders and board accountable. No advisory board, made up from those who wished to serve in that capacity. No transparency regarding when board meetings are, what is being discussed, avenues to submit agenda to be discussed, etc. No openness around discussions over the site, all done behind closed doors, even closed to other founders.
So when you take all of this into consideration, you can understand from my point of view, why I finally decided to just walked away. There was no point to me serving
in any advisory capacity if the board didn't want anyone outside of their own ‘Group of 7’ to participate. There was no point in me trying to lead such group if the board lacks the respect of my position, my thoughts, and my work.
Actions speak a lot louder than words. The actions of the board were to remain a conclave of 7, to sweep away the other founders, and to make it completely about them. Which is not what we were founded around.
I can move on from the situation, but I can’t restore the relationship that I thought we had. And as a result, I had withdrawn my request to be a non-voting member to sit on the board, and to lead an advisory committee so as to liaison between them and the official board. I stand by that decision, even today.
I lost significant respect for those who questioned my motivations, even though those motivations were for freedom and openness. If I sought true power, I would have run for the board and threw my name in for president. Why was my request for openness seen as a power move?
As a result, I have walked away from the TD community in general. I cannot endorse the organization that alienated all of the goals we had agreed upon from the very beginning.
It has been nearly one full year since the launch of TD. Transparency is effectively non-existent. I can’t endorse that, and promote it to the community. What exists today is a lie from the promotional video that we released. Simply reading the minutes of the first board meeting, whereby board members discussed possibly removing the term limits because ‘maybe people want to keep their positions’. That’s not what we agreed upon. To me, to even consider this for future debate questions their motivations.
And like I said, actions speak louder than words.
My action is to cease speaking about everything, altogether. So I have come to the end. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
