Subject: Re: So... Re: offering pre-purchases
From: Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:25:52 +0200


El lun, 22-10-2007 a las 21:19 -0700, Thomas Lord escribió:
> Shrug.    I can visualize this thing -- the structures resonate
> with what I know really well.   Most people can't see this thing.
> I can help people switch to the side that sees.  I'm for hire for
> that.    Entry-point prices for conversations start at pocket change
> and go up to pretty arbitrarily high sums.   I've given enough hints
> that if you aren't piqued already then you're clueless.    It's all
> completely "open" but it's also hard to wrap your head around.
> 
> Who's with me?  Let's go.
> 

I see it more as "mentoring" or "teaching the ways" to them. I.E., the
classical patronage relation where I tell them what I think is right or
wrong in what they are doing and they pay me money for doing this.

This kind of relations require that I have "sharp edges" (i.e., that I
practice a lot) and also that I'm closely involved with the field
(communities, conferences, etc.) Both things require time and money, so
I'm expected to "sell" only a small part of my time and self-administer
the rest to keep "in the market".

Not sure how this approach relates with yours, but I can see there is
some relation.

Regards
Santiago (who has done that a number of times, and is trying now to stay
safe at the 5 hours/week involvement per company)

> -t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Thomas Lord writes:
> >  > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >
> >  > > Why?  What's in it for [the VCs]? 
> >  > 
> >  > Well, I hate "selling from the negative" but there's both a negative and 
> >  > positive here.
> >  > 
> >  > The positive:  they survive, my way.   The negative: they don't.
> >
> > "Sez Tom Lord" is not going to convince anybody.
> >
> >  > > Remember, the VCs don't care about the topology of software; 
> >
> >  > I call "bs".
> >
> > Because you're insisting on pushing your point and missing mine.
> >
> > Please remember, I have no interest in "winning" this debate; I want
> > FSBs to succeed as much as anybody does (I'm not counting those who
> > have an economic stake in a particular FSB, obviously they care much
> > more than I do, and perhaps not merely in that sense).  I do not want
> > to see FSBs fail for having unrealistic ideas about the underlying
> > economics of the business, which includes a dominating portion of
> > general business and economics; the special nature of software is not
> > going to account for more than 20-30% of the difficulties of running a
> > software business.
> >
> > Put it this way: you at least know I do care about the right things.
> > If you're not convincing me, how are you going to convince a typical
> > conventional client, even one that prides itself on free software-
> > friendly practices?
> >
> > Sure, I know you've managed a prepurchase or two or six already, but
> > is it enough?
> >
> >  > > [VCs] only really care about the distribution of the random
> >  > > variable called "ROI".
> >
> >  > That's how they keep score, yes.
> >
> > Which is what an economist means by "really care about", OK?
> >
> >  > > You need to show them that understanding the topology gives
> >  > > them better distributions of ROI.
> >
> >  > Yeah.  It's a detailed conversation about which I've given sufficient
> >  > hints.  Sign up today.
> >
> > Are you talking about software I can prepurchase?  Or a business I can
> > invest in?  Or something else?
> >
> >  > Building out good ideas into at-scale firms is hard.
> >
> > That's my line!  I'm not sure how you think that works to favor your
> > point of view.  Explain?
> >
> >  > > There *are* organizations which have managed to (to some extent)
> >  > > institutionalize repeatability: Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, IBM ....
> >  > 
> >  > The good repeatability examples you cite there failed only because
> >  > "all is change" -- the boundaries of cooparation and participation
> >  > were too inflexibly set.
> >
> > I don't consider Bell and IBM failures at all, except that they've
> > somehow managed to overlook your not inconsiderable talents.<wink>  Of
> > course I'm teasing ... but only about 50%.  Still, in the great scheme
> > of things, I have to consider that failure pretty minor when stacked
> > against their accomplishments.  PARC is a very interesting case, they
> > had repeatability of ideas down, but they failed to get some of the
> > most important ones to market and so flunked the business course in
> > repeatability.  So, who would you cite on the "Great Failures of
> > Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center"?
> >
> >
> >   
>