[Squeak-e] Market economies
rwithers12 at attbi.com
Sat Feb 1 14:50:39 CET 2003
On Saturday, February 1, 2003, at 06:37 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
> On Friday 31 January 2003 23:03, Robert Withers wrote:
>> I have an outrageous idea. I'm wondering what you think of it.
>> The real value of squeak is the community. Since we are considering
>> the possibilities of opening a hole can of worms, here, why don't we
>> turn it up a notch. Let's form a corporation and issue preferred
>> stock to a bunch of people. I am thinking the entire squeak and E
>> communities should own stock. We'll want to distribute it
>> to 'contribution' somehow, but there is really no fair way, is there?
>> So we'll have a vote. And whatever the results, we'll abide by them.
> I think monetizing the effort requires a closer alignment with the
> 'gift economy'.
Do you have some references to 'gift economy'? That is clearly an
element of what I had in mind, but I wanted to go a step further and
tie it to a real legal entity and give it measurable value. I was
thinking it should be like currencies that are based on either an
underlying value standard (gold) or the credibility of the issuer and
it's relation to other currencies. My thinking was that initially we
would want just one 'brand' until it becomes more established and has a
definable value. This is very new territory to me.
> I think the "Open Source Coordinator" for the project should mint
> a new brand of erights. The coordinator can then set bounties on
> the outstanding bugs and feature requests, payable in the new
> brand of erights.
I think the issuer should be the Squeak Foundation. Is it possible for
a non-profit organization to issue stock? Does it have an ownership
> For example, you want some squeaker to translate my doc-code
> implementation to Squeak. Decide how much that is worth to you,
> relative to the rest of the e-squeak effort. Post a bounty for the
> implementation, payable in e-squeak rights. Do the same for all
> the tasks in your bug/feature tracker.
I was thinking that this comes after an initial issuance. Everyone
involved should start out with ownership and voting rights, although
the implications of that could be a bit hairy. We should discuss it
further if people think that this is an interesting direction.
> If people would be interested in using such a system, I would be
> interested in building it.
I don't want to discourage you in the least. Part of my thinking in
building this in squeak would be that it would provide a good impetus
for building a system to support it. Damned manipulative of me isn't
If there is any possibility, that we can't address, of this suggestion
derailing the effort to produce such a system, then I will want to call
it off. This suggestion is not meant to detract from why we all
gathered here in the first place.
That we have gathered into a list is the most important and really
amazing thing that we have all done this month. We have a new mailing
list, with over 20 participants, less than 24 hours into it, for the
purpose of building a SafeSqueak. I am completely blown away. :-)
So who is going to start the real conversation? Guys, how can we do
exceptions with only lexical scoping? Or do we need to have privileged
Here is a description of what we most definitely cannot give up in
SafeSqueak: http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/2950 .
More information about the Squeak-e