Nadia believes that our policy makers, grantmakers and activists are unaware of the role that open source software plays and, when they have heard of it, they erroneously believe that it’s well funded. As an example, the IRS is no longer granting 501(c)(3) status to organizations that primarily produce open source software with the argument that software is not a public good and they can’t guarantee that people won’t profit from it.
Nadia’s report, funded by the Ford Foundation, is a great read. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about open source software, how it works and how it’s funded. Warning: it is very long! Think about it more as a short book than a blog post!
I am not an expert in poverty nor in economic culture. If there are any mistakes in this post, I likely understood it incorrectly. I hope that this post inspires you to go learn more about the social groups in our society and how we can all work more effectively together.
Bridges out of Poverty taught by Jodi Pfarr was a fascinating class about how the cultures of individuals living in the middle class is different than individuals living in poverty.
For individuals in poverty, values are centered around relationships. Titles are not important. Relationships you have with people are where you place your trust. Life is focused on the present and problems are all interlocking. Individuals in poverty spend time worrying about things like child care, housing, agencies and transportation.
An example Jodi gave of relationship based values was to take the situation where a little girl is starting school. Her older brother takes her around and introduces her to people. When he gets to the janitor, he says the janitor is good people. His sister listens and understands that the janitor is someone to be trusted. If that little girl is having trouble in school, who do you think will have more influence on getting her to do her homework, the principal or the janitor? The janitor, according to Jodi, because she’s trusted.
For individuals in the middle class, values are centered around achievement. Trust is placed with those with titles – they trust the principal, they trust the judge, they trust the police officer based on their position, not because they know them. Individuals in the middle class trust or at least respect and listen to people with the appropriate titles. Those are the people they go to for help. Life is achievement based, future focused and problems are contained. Their sister’s kid getting sick will not keep them from going to work. Middle class individuals spend time thinking about cost of childcare and education, retirement, credit card debt and careers.
Jodi also touched briefly on individuals living in wealth. Their values are centered around connections: political, financial and social. They are generational focused and problems are controlled. They spend time thinking about things like associations, travel, events and politics.
Understanding that people in different wealth brackets have different cultures, not just different problems, you can develop better systems that realize that these are systematic issues not individual choice. Jodi gave examples of how this understanding had greatly improved services for individuals in poverty. For example, a set of judges decided to try doing a first come, first serve system on Fridays. They reduced warrants by 70%! The theory was that individuals in poverty have difficulty with transportation and often have to adjust their schedule to help out others (or their own ride disappears). It’s easier for them to pick a day and show up when they can and wait as long as needed than it is for them to make it at 8:15 on a particular Wednesday. People in the middle class find that extremely inconvenient and often fail to understand why it works better for people in poverty. If we include representatives from all groups as we make policies and seek to understand and not judge, we can make systems that are much more effective.
The class was taught by Jodi Pfarr who did an excellent job of explaining both the culture and values of middle class versus poverty. The class was aimed at people who provide services for those in poverty, mostly non-profits and government agencies, and almost all middle class people. In Fort Collins, Colorado, this class is occasionally offered for free to the public by the Bohemian Foundation.
First published on Medium.
Always Hungry? by David Ludwig is yet another diet book but one written by a respected doctor specializing in obesity in children. I really enjoyed several articles about Dr Ludwig and his ideas, so I was expecting something more from the book but all I got additional was lots of recipes.
- Dr Ludwig, like many others, blames sugar and refined grains for many of our health problems. I like how he explained it and provided supporting science and studies, but if this is why you are reading the book, I recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Dr Ludwig does do a good job of explaining inflammation, blood sugar and fat storage in a way that people without medical backgrounds might understand.
- I love his point that the process of getting fat makes you eat more, not the other way around.
- I hate reading cook books on the Kindle. Actually, I just hate reading cook books. I think you should search for recipes or ideas for recipes, not read them.
- The advice for how to eat healthy seems pretty consistent these days — avoid processed foods, refined grains and sugar — and just as hard to follow.
- He focused more on waist size than weight and only recommended weighing yourself once a week as opposed to most people’s recommendation to weigh yourself daily.
- His supporting quotes and stories were all about people who had lost 5–20 pounds instead of the tons of weight most diet books claim.
- New studies seem to be consistently saying that exercise is good but exercise makes you eat more, not less. I really wonder what we’ll be saying a decade from now.
- He doesn’t really talk about overweight kids at all in spite of his background.
- If I could not eat carbs, I’m sure I would lose weight. I would also be really sick of eggs and chicken and meat. And while I like vegetables and fruit, I just can’t imagine them replacing pasta.
- Unlike Atkins, Dr. Ludwig recommends lots of fruits and vegetables and eventually some grains and carbs.
What did you end up thinking about as you read the book or these points?
First published on Medium.
Companies with the newer “sharing economy” business models are gamifying work. They are making people work hard in ways that resemble how they play video games.
To better understand this, I compare their models to the components of a game as given by Reality is Broken by Jane McGonigal:
- Goal: A game has a very specific outcome, a sense of purpose. Where as at work you might wonder what the purpose is, in a game it’s usually very clear what you are trying to do.
- Rules: In a game there are clear limitations on how you are supposed to accomplish the goal. These limitations make it really clear where people can experiment encouraging creativity and strategy. At work, the limitations are often not clear. Maybe you can ask for more budget, maybe another department will help you, maybe …
- Feedback system: all games have a scoring system or a way of knowing how close you are to the goal. I think this is often the most missing thing at work, especially if you don’t have a clear goal (besides making money).
- Voluntary participation: everyone who is playing the game knows and accepts the goal, rules and feedback. This allows people to play together and makes it safe and fun as you always have the freedom to leave.
Companies like Airbnb and Uber have all these components, and people have fun trying to see if they can gain new levels and statuses. I recently talked to an Airbnb host who is obsessed with making “Super Host” status.
Here’s how these new sharing economy models compare to games.
- A goal. With the sharing economy businesses, your goal is very clear. With Uber you want lots of rides, or maybe money from rides. With Airbnb you want lots of guests. The goal, what the business and the app are all about, are obvious.
- Rules. With the sharing economy businesses, the apps make it very clear what the rules are. They make it clear what you are supposed to do. For example, pick up a client at this address and take them to this address.
- Feedback. Both of these systems, and many like them, excel at feedback. Uber has every driver and every rider rate each other before they are allowed to do anything else. Airbnb works hard to get people to rate each other and gives Super Host status to those that maintain high ratings. At Grace Hopper, I went to a talk by an Airbnb data scientist where she talked about the ways they try to make feedback more honest. They’ve made lots of changes (like not letting hosts and guests see each others’ reviews until after they both have left one) to encourage more and more honest reviews.
- Voluntary participation. As long as people participating in Airbnb and Uber are doing it as supplemental income or as long as there are alternatives like HomeAway.com and Lyft, people can leave whenever they want. I tried driving Uber one afternoon and decided it wasn’t for me. The “game” is fun because the people playing it got to choose to leave if they didn’t like it.
What do you think? Do you think the new “sharing economy” businesses are gamifying work? Is that making the world a better place? Should traditional businesses try to gamify work as well?
First published on Medium.
When role models are risk adverse, they change the game for everyone.
Last night at kickball, a young woman on the other team decided to start bunting and she changed the preferred strategy for women on both teams. She was a strong player and she obviously thought her best option, maybe her only option, was to bunt. So quickly the feel became, to be a “team” player, all weak players should bunt. Never mind that by bunting you give up all chances of kicking a home run or even a double. Or of feeling proud of your kick.
She kicked a few good balls early in the game but got out on the way to first. So the next inning she decided to take advantage of the rule that helps weak kickers, and she bunted. There’s a line between first and third base, through the pitching mound, and no fielders are allowed in front of that line until the ball has been kicked. Pretty soon, the weaker players on her team (all women) were also bunting. Then the women on my team debated whether they should bunt. Then the stronger players on my team started encouraging the weaker players to bunt! That’s when I got upset. Upset at a world where teams encourage newer and weaker players to avoid risk, and therefore to avoid the chance to grow.
This is rec, co-ed kickball. Most of us haven’t played kickball in decades. Many of us haven’t played a sport in years. And several people don’t know the game well enough to know where the play is. The umpires are awesome. They encourage and help everyone. In addition to their umpire role, they often play surrogate coach and cheerleader. They don’t just say “1 out”, they say “1 out, play is at first”. And they check in with players. I think last night’s umpire could tell I was getting really annoyed. He checked in with me to make sure I was alright.
I remember learning to play kickball. It was a new school and a new sport. After my first “at bat” it became very clear I’d never kicked a ball. So my next at bat, everyone moved in for the kill. I had a wall of fielders all 10 feet from me. There was no where to kick the ball. So I love the rule that no one can be in front of the line until the ball is kicked. Rules that help new or weak players get started are good. When experienced players use those rules to their advantage, you end up with politics.
You end up with people examining all the rules to see where the loop holes or advantages are. Last night we ended up debating how many men could be on a team, what order they could kick in, if you could rush the ball once it was bunted, … and it became about the rules and winning, not about the game.
My emotional reaction was out of proportion for a kickball game. But it’s because I realized that I see this in the world all the time. When someone who is clearly capable says “oh, I could never do that”, they make all those people that are still learning doubt their abilities. When you turn down that client presentation or that keynote, when you start your piece in the meeting with “I’m not sure but …”, you show that you don’t think that you, a competent, experienced person, should take that risk. And when you combine that risk aversion with a do what it takes for the team to win, you cripple people. You end up encouraging your newer players to not take any risks for fear of hurting the team. Some times an individual has to take one for the team. Some times the team has to take one for the individual in order to grow a strong team.
While each individual has to decide on their own whether a risk is right for them or not, the team needs to watch and make sure that risk aversion isn’t becoming the norm, enforced by peer pressure, for their newer or weaker members.
Kick hard. Work hard. Take risks. Learn. Make mistakes. Help others make mistakes. Cheer them on. Grow your team. Be a role model.
First published on Medium.
Many open source organizations start around code. Someone has an idea and they write some code to express it. If people like the idea, they add more code. That code gets reviewed and incorporated.
This works great while the project rallies around the original idea. However,when they go to add new products or plan new features, the culture of code reviews gets in the way of a culture of new ideas.
Why’s that? Because code reviews look for flaws. You need to make sure you don’t introduce bugs. Ideas, on the other hand, need a whole team of input before they are strong enough for the risk analysis. New ideas get stronger when people add to them, figure out ways they can help. Once ideas become a plan they need something like a code review but not before they become a plan.
Reviewing Code is about Eliminating Risk
When new code is submitted, it’s always reviewed before it’s accepted. And often there are very clear guidelines. You are reviewing to make sure that your project’s guidelines are met, that the code is well written and that it introduces no new bugs. Often this means you are looking for things that are wrong. You may also suggest improvements, but the focus is on looking for things that are wrong.
Reviewing Ideas is about Exploring Opportunity
When new ideas are reviewed, they are often not fully formed. Ideas, especially new product ideas, need the entire organization to help figure out the full potential, what each team could bring to the table and how people might react to it. New ideas need to be fully developed before you start poking holes in them. And new ideas cannot be fully developed by one person. They need a whole team of people to say, “yeah, that’s great, and I could help by linking it to this other thing I’m working on” or “yeah, I like that and it makes me wonder if we did this, if that would be even better.”
What happens when you apply code review techniques to ideas?
When you apply code review techniques to ideas, you kill them before they are fully developed. You look for everything that is wrong in an idea. You look for all the risks, all the holes, before you add your strengths to it. Just when the idea needs you to help figure out how it could succeed, you poke a hole in it.
Next time you see someone in your organization propose an idea, make your first reaction an additive action. Challenge yourself to make the idea even better instead of looking for the bugs.