Visit the forum instructions to learn how to post to the forum, enable email notifications, subscribe to a category to receive emails when there are new discussions (like a mailing list), bookmark discussions and to see other tips to get the most out of our forum!
Introduction: Mikkel Fishman and Crystal Antes - Org. Dev.
  • Hello guys. First, here is what I sent to Elifarley that got

    me into this mess:

    “We [Crystal and Mikkel] feel that the ideas are great but
    there seems to be a lot missing on the project management end for truly making
    it a global collaborative effort. Several people that are currently working on
    projects that fit well into the GVCS feel the same way and while they share the
    aims it is unclear how they can get involved in their own fashion. We have a
    few ideas to propose about how to manage the project management side and I have
    the skills necessary to architect any system on the technical side. Would you be
    interested in hearing about them and seeing if there is a clear way to
    contribution on either our ideas or more generally? Thanks for getting this
    started, we think it could become extremely important.”

    He asked me to post on this forum and copy the email, so
    here it is. The purpose of this post is to try to briefly explain these

    First here is what we are NOT proposing. We are not
    proposing a replacement of any technology that seems to be being used at the
    moment (wiki, pivotal, so on and so forth). In addition, we are not proposing a
    centralized uberstructure that tries to manage all efforts simultaneously. We
    strongly agree with the sentiments that Eerik posted in a comment that was
    linked to me by Elifarley.

    What we are proposing is fairly simple: a standardized
    framework that people can use to do project management and quickly look at the
    overall progress of GVCS. It is unclear to me at this point how much GVCS has
    thought specifically about how to foster the creation of an innovation
    ecosystem from top to bottom. This includes providing vision on the
    technologies that are useful (done very well already) to internal development
    of those technologies (looks like it is progressing fair enough, but highly
    focused around Factor e Farm), while enabling the creation of different flavors
    and progress by a widely dispersed team and finally providing some integrated
    vectors to commercialization on some level such as regional micro-manufacturers
    and servicers.

    Perhaps these things have been articulated and we are
    missing them (although we did read nearly every publically available page we
    could find) and perhaps some of this is outside the present scope of GVCS, if
    so I apologize.  That said, we know a lot
    of people trying to do cool things in this vein, and we hope to as well, and
    the following is an idea of how to support that with a tool suite and process.
    If this is successful, then it should be able to support the idea the aneiren
    suggested here about how to better utilize talent and labor available to this project.

    We agree that every project should have a PM. However, we
    take it one step further and suggest that “projects” are actually a sublevel
    below technologies. GVCS refers to 50 different technologies but the
    implementation of each technology can have varying forms based on location,
    resources, budget, etc (as Eerik said in the comment linked above, in open
    source hardware each build team can have its own ‘personality’). As such, our
    first step is to define the broad Functional, Technical and Design
    specifications on the Technology level that all projects to implement that
    technology would reasonably share. We think there is a reasonably good job of
    this already on the wiki pages for several  technologies.  This is the vision part that it seems GVCS
    could play a dominant role.

    Once a technology has a vision fleshed out, then groups (either
    Factor e Farm or outside groups) may register to implement a flavor that that
    technology through a project. When this occurs, they get their own location to
    run their project, including fleshing out the functional, technical and design
    specifications that are specific to their project. By default, all Technology
    specifications are included, and if they want, they can even link to other
    projects and/or Technologies if they want to replicate those specs. Here is an
    example with a “Toy Car Technology” that has two projects that implement it in
    slightly different ways of “inexpensive” and “quality.” Notice that the general
    Technological specifications flow through to each project.


    From there on, they can follow a process of their choosing,
    although I think it’s in GVCS’ interest as an organization to provide tools to
    enable each stage in a coherent manner. Below is an example of a process flow
    that takes a project from its original technological conception to end level


    It is important that each project have clearly defined
    functional and technical specifications. There should be care to make sure that
    each functional specification is directly implemented by one or more technical
    specifications. A summary could be as follows:


    As for the implementation, we think a possibility is to have
    a data entry manager where specifications are defined, and then have different
    views that are projections onto the data based on usage. For example, the first
    and last diagrams above could be automatically generated views that allow
    people to explore the underlying data. An example entry could be something


    Multiple views on the same data would be particularly useful
    as roles become differentiated. I have no hands on manufacturing experience and
    would try my best not to end up in the hospital if tasked to build something,
    but I have a lot of potentially interested parties both in terms of a customer
    and investor base. If I worked closely with a PM to help define and relay
    Functional specifications, then I could start the process of looking for funding
    to drive the R&D as well as general publicity in parallel with the
    prototyping process. In addition, when projects have completed this process
    ensures that they have sufficient information to “live on” and be replicated,
    as well as being used to generate end level user documentation for each
    feature. Distilling low level information into high level information is
    crucial for these kinds of tasks.

  • 16 Comments sorted by
  • Continued: 

    In some ways this is a very traditional process that is present in any corporate manufacturing environment. However, there is no reason it couldn’t be adapted to have the ethos of the open source community be reflected in the decision making. We think that it is perfectly feasible to use wikis/forums/IRC/etc. as a formative process – it is just that once ideas have been formed they should be recorded more formally, with links to the conversations entered as references. In addition, it would make sense to have the Pivotal tracker automatically generate goals based on the specifications. At that point the PM can break each goal into actionable tasks and assign individuals/pools to complete a task. The status of each goal can be automatically represented on the summary level diagrams above in order to get an idea of the progress of each project and give a big-level picture representation.

    This sort of super structure would enable a cohesive flow from the largest question of the current state of GVCS on the technological level down to the smallest details of why such and such task was assigned.  This organizational structure could provide support for the dynamic contributions that the community requires and minimize the importance of a single individual to the long term success or failure of a project. It would also provide a very good foundation for the creation of infrastructural resources that would allow a myriad of local businesses to be developed without getting overburdened by basic organizational tasks.


  • I think this is a great idea.  I think an essential element of this would be, after we create independent teams, to create a funding structure for each of them, rather than a centralized structure, so that each can be funded through the crowd sourcing.
  • Yes, this is why we put "funding secured?" on the project layer after the technical and functional specifications are designed. I could have sworn I saw a link on the OSE website to a page where they talk about wanting to have a funding/contract bidding structure where you put together all your specs and ask for people to bid on them to figure out what your funding needs are, but I can't find it at the moment. That would fit into that layer, and then it'd be easy to have tieins to funding.
  • It sounds like basically a system which stores and organizes and makes easily modifiable documentation on everything in the project in any desired degree of detail, in a hierarchical way from ideas, observations and foundational philosophy through technologies for which to produce an open source version, through specific designs for each technology down to actionable tasks to develop the design, and produce it, and beyond.

    I am sort of visualizing what you seem to be getting at as a sort of gigantic flow chart, including all documentation on the project, which has a web based interface to modify it.

     And it automatically fills in the documentation where possible (I don't
    know if that would be possible, or really necessary though since people
    are pretty good at it).

      If you can really build something like that that would be spectacular and I think very helpful.  Do you have experience with the sort of system you are talking about? Can you really do it?  

    Are you sure it does not exist already in some form? It seems like it would be useful for nearly any project.

  • "And it automatically fills in the documentation where possible (I don't 
    know if that would be possible, or really necessary though since people 
    are pretty good at it). "

    I think maybe it's more accurate to say that we'd create a program where you could create templates that would define documentation sections to fill out and then it generates flow charts that demonstrate how the templates are connected and where links between content are occurring. 

    "Do you have experience with the sort of system you are talking about? Can you really do it?" Not specifically [experience]. I (Mikkel) have created programs that handle gigs of scientific data that have dynamic workflow processing where you define how processes are related and it uses that to run analyses. Crystal has managed projects in the past where she developed these kinds of templates (form based) and also was a trainer for a few years where she made different levels of documentation based on the functional/technical specs and then taught those to groups. So between my experience with organizing data flow in a dynamic way and her experience with this type of information, we're confident we can put something together. I'm sure the community will have a lot of talent to fill in any gaps and after a few runs we'd have something quite nice.

    "Are you sure it does not exist already in some form? It seems like it would be useful for nearly any project." Haha yeah you'd think it would. If there is then we're all ears, but we've searched quite a while and haven't found anything. There are lots of tools that focus on the detail level but we haven't found anything that can bring all those different details together in a cohesive way on the organizational management side. [I know there are some heavy duty ones that are targeted at organizations as part of all in one solutions where every tool you use is built in, but those suites are clunky and inflexible. We couldn't find an open source platform that utilizes other open source technologies, let alone dynamically]. 

    Thanks for your comment.
  • Overall, I agree with what you are proposing and have started to collect information about managing OSE projects in and  I have structured the OSE Steam Engine development process to move it closer to a typical project management approach.  See index to documents at

    Regarding the separating of technology from GVCS tool development:  while I agree in general, it creates a rather open-ended intermediate project before demonstrable results are obtained.  As such, I think it depends on the GVCS tool.  Batteries and Aluminum Extraction clearly need some up-front research.  The saw mill doesn't seem to need it.  Etc.

    - Mark Norton

  • Looks good Mark! The amount of work put into the steam engine documentation is very impressive; I'll have a look at it over the next few days.

    As for the separation, it's not necessarily going to be a complication in terms of how things are running now. If something like the saw mill is good to go it can just be called the project with TBD "Technology" level details that would get filled out if someone else wants to make a different version.
  • Hello all. I'm the fellow that Marcin tasked with developing our web project mgmt tools. 

    Your idea is pretty similar in essence to Aras, an open-source PLM (product lifecycle mgmt) service we looked at (that's unfortunately based on a Microsoft stack). Check it out; it's pretty powerful and used by large enterprises. Marcin liked Aras, but thought it more suitable down the road, given the learning curve and our lack of infrastructure to train people how to use it. He preferred the simplicity of Pivotal. It'd also, clearly, take us significant resources to engineer something either like your idea, or Aras, by ourselves. 

    For now, we're going to get project teams going with Pivotal. I'll describe the overall architecture in a blog post soon. Eventually, we may migrate to another tool along the lines you two describe. We ourselves were thinking along very similar lines: of populating user stories in Pivotal based on a predefined set of steps in diagrammatic work flows.

    My own comments: I should say that agile development is rather at odds with more traditional management processes such as you describe, and Aras has implemented.  Traditional processes are more familiar to people, of course. Agile devlopment requires a shift in thinking "to get it". 

    Pivotal has a simple workflow for making and fulfilling each user story. User stories are basically requests for action by a stakeholder, written in plain English, that represents something of value. They can be written in the form "who needs what, and why," e.g. "We need a secure website so nefarious users don't steal credit cards."

    Pivotal enforces a simple workflow for each user story. First, requests are made by stakeholders. Then these stories are ranked in difficulty on a relative scale by team members, and sometimes broken apart into smaller user stories. Stakeholders can adjust priorities on their stories, given the team's feedback. Team members begin work on a user story, and when it's completed, mark it so, and deliver it for acceptance. Now the stakeholder (sometimes QA) either accepts or rejects the user story. If accepted, it's delivered. If rejected, it's redelivered to the team member to begin again.

    Try overlaying that basic loop of making and fulfilling requests onto your diagrams. You will see that some of the arrows and boxes go away, or are implicit. Really you just have a set of user stories: every project needs  specs, publicity, bill of materials, videos, component diagrams, and so on. These could all conform to certain defined standards, but there's no reason such standards have to be attached to a hardened workflow, and these standards aren't precluded by agile development. Likewise, if a different set of stakeholders want something different, they could start a variant of the tool using agile tools, too. What's left is really a series of user stories, or boxes, without all the arrows that try to anticipate every possible next action in advance. 

    If you see Aras, you'll see there's a lot more rabbit holes to go down than you've listed. Not to say it can't be done or isn't worth doing, but it may also be more trouble than its worth. I'm not sure, personally.

    Fortunately, it's easy to go with an agile tool like Pivotal right now, and see if agile really is sufficient for our needs. It may not be necessary to go with a more traditional tool like Aras at all.
  • Hey Vann, I knew there had to be something like it, I'll definitely check out Aras. 

    As for the rest of the comment, you guys really need to get some sort of standard or explanation going for how you are going to use Pivotal. For instance, on the "collab platform" tracker the first story is "ping isaiah to respond to my email" and the next is "define organizational infrastructure for scalable, post-scarcity product development as a new economic engine for civilization." Perhaps there is one being used for one of the hardware projects that is more clearly defined.

    On the larger scale, I think agile development is all fine and well, and have never used a traditional process when developing software. That said, I think it is appropriate for managing things when talking about the implementation team level, not in terms of organizational vision or specification design, let alone business development. 

    It is unclear how OSE is positioning itself in terms of purpose. If the idea is that there are the 50 technologies and that it will basically spec them all out itself and get them done and tell everyone else what it's done, then perhaps agile development is fine. However, that is not what I (nor my friends and contacts, who are very involved in this type of stuff day to day) feel that it should be. We think that OSE should be a platform for "scalable, post-scarcity development" and as such, serve as a hub for people to initiate new technologies (of which I have an extensive list, particularly in energy generation) and flavors, as well as using it to formalize the development work in a way that can be easily transmitted and turned into businesses. This purpose is much different as it's not about building one-off designs, but providing a lasting foundation for continued development and support. It seems like this is what OSE wants in terms of its messaging, but its current operations make that unclear. 

    I should lastly note that none of these workflows above will be hard coded into the program. Instead I am thinking about a meta-workflow that defines what the workflow is for a particular methodology. This will ensure that any form of organizational and operational development can be used. (Perhaps Aras has the same thing, I'll have a look at it.) 

    In any case, I appreciate what OSE is doing and sympathize with its feeling that it just wants to get things done, but on the other hand it's clear from both the forums and outside conversations I've had that OSE could be tapping into a really huge level of labor and capital in order to work on these things in a cohesive way around the world. 
  • Yes, I have to agree with Mikkel, especially that the enthusiasm is being very inefficiently harnessed right now, in a variety of ways.  There are different dynamics though that make adding additional technologies problematic to some degree.   The current number of people serious about contributing to the project, from looking at the special:userlist on the wiki and sampling some of the edit histories, is in the range of 50 people, not hundreds.

    We don't want to divide and conquer ourselves.  I think it is very sensible to identify and focus on the most important technologies, and this is done basically through the scoring system for new technologies that people are considering adding (have you see that thing?).  It's pretty sloppy though, but what can you do.  It would be nice it this were all based on a huge academic study that identified the system and had done all the planning really well so we knew where we were going better.  But at the same time there's no doubt that we will need batteries, a tractor, etc. on the table...

    Also, there is, I saw it on the forum somewhere, a system currently being developed to fill the role of something like sourceforge, but for hardware, which seems to be a part of what you are getting at.  Maybe it would make more sense to keep the platform and the OSE effort separate.  OSE will use the platform when it comes up in all likelyhood. 

    I have been thinking lately about a sort of OSE v.2.0 and how I would do it, and it's more in line with what you are saying than what is being done.  But hopefully there will be other people who start other such organizations.  I dig that sometimes we want to improve the existing organizations because they have the groundwork for funding and publicity already laid, and it's improtant to talk about it and push for change, but ultimately the current approach may be impractical to change, and too risky too, and maybe we just need multiple organizations on the problem, each trying it differently.

       Unfortunately not as easy to set that sort of thing up while still holding a normal job...  Still, if I won the lottery or something maybe I would move to a rural area and start Opensourcetopia.
  • gregor, I am coming from an interesting position. I am currently in New Zealand checking out this village called Atamai. Atamai is in some ways where Factor e Farm talks about being in a few years (as another topic, one of the things I'm working with Atamai on is communicating what they've learned from getting set up). 

    Atamai has a lot of potential for a few reasons:
    1) it is an actual place where currently about 12 people are living and working full time, with another 30 or so people that are actively involved in developing it. By 2015 they hope to have 200+ people living there full time.
    2) their purpose is to get the basic needs secure in terms of food, water, shelter, etc. in order to become a working laboratory and incubator for the type of technologies we're talking about
    3) they have some amazing skill on hand across the board: business development by a woman that has been organizing major non-profits, an engineer manager that can "build anything" including a car literally from scratch (machined and all), a construction manager that has overseen multimillion dollar projects, a builder that is amazing, several green architects with decades of experience, a farm manager that has extensive permaculture experience, and the founder has a decades old permaculture project that is one of the best examples in existence. [Incidentally about half of them have also been professional IT people and can program and run their own stuff.] There are many more people involved, and that's just directly. When you talk about their network it gets crazy quickly. Yesterday I talked to one of the leading algae growers in the world who has some incredible ideas about how to use the fast growing biomass of algae (carbon cycling that generates tons of power, fertilizer, etc) and these guys also have many connections to the peak oil societies that have thousands of members that are currently on their own tinkering with GVCS technologies and could be a huge soure of manpower and maybe capital. 

    I think the network of dedicated people is very large, and could quickly aggregate around OSE. But, they are extremely busy people as this literally is their livelihood, and they don't have much time or patience to try to deal with organizations that have an unsure vision. The response I have gotten from the various people I've talked to has been uniform: they LOVE the idea, but they think the current site gives the vibe that it's just a bunch of MechEs that have sat together in a room and thought of something "neat" without much regard to the foundational needs: both in terms of organization and science (OSE is extremely light on core energy production and non-existent on biology and chemistry).  So I've tasked myself with trying to develop better outreach and get an understanding of what OSE is doing. 

    I don't want to come off as dismissing what OSE currently is or doing, as I think it's important, but I do think that as an organization it can go one step back and then two steps forward. If I'm told to scamper off I'll do so, but OSE has something that we (the general community) needs: exposure and enthusiasm. You can't buy a TED talk.

    I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place to go over ideas like this, but it seems to have come out anyway. I think that OSE v 2.0 should refactor where OSE is the organizational structure behind these developments and is the platform host for groups to plug in to. I think that GVCS is the operating ideal and drive behind the organization. And lastly, Factor e Farm is a site that is using the OSE platform to implement aspects of the GVCS ideal. The 50 technologies are not the purpose in and of themselves, they are merely physical embodiments that are deliverables to help bring forth the purpose. There are many more that are needed first and perhaps some current ones that are needed last (gregor: where is that scoring system? I haven't seen it in all my site wandering) and I fully expect that different sites will most likely specialize. Factor e Farm seems to have naturally picked up a lot of MechE stuff and that is great, but other sites could easily focus just as strongly on energy production, food/biological processes, chemical process, perhaps even social technology. Some of these sites will be physical and some may be virtual; some projects may be worked on exclusively at one site, some may be a collaboration; everything should be cross pollinated between the sites and there should be a vector to transmit them to and coordinate with the world at large.

    I'm not trying to piss in the punch bowl here and make it sound like I expect OSE to take on all this itself. Far from it. In fact the primary purpose of this criticism is to suggest that sharpening the difference between the organization and the Factor e Farm will allow both to function more efficiently by relieving the organizational burden from the technology creators and allow the technology creators to get more help by utilizing an effective organization. And I think doing so will open up the floodgates to help and money. I know a ton of people that want nothing more than to spend their time and money on projects like these but do not have guidance about where to start. Marcin gave a talk in a room where you literally could not turn around without bumping into a multi-millionaire through either personal or organizational wealth. OSE needs to put something in place and then confront people like those so they are energized to help instead of just talking about how "interesting" it was while wiping away the hors d'oeuvre crumbs that have spilled onto their shirt. 

    I think I've rambled long enough. I started this post because I always look to purpose first and then suggest technological foundation to support that purpose. If something else exists out there that works I'm not particularly wedded to the proposed platform, but I am strongly enthusiastic about the organizational purpose that OSE can achieve if it grinds down and asks for help. I just don't want to see OSE as a potentially olympic marathoner that fails because it only enters the 100m dash.

  • Please don't go away! Well, if you want to.  I totally agree and though you may not be getting much answers out of this forum, I suspect that is because few people check it and many that do regard it as a form of entertainment or something instead of taking the discussion seriously.

    Your vision as described in the last comment is a truly great one, and something I have been thinking along the lines of myself, to broaden and spread open source to all fields in a morerobust way.  From what I know it is fair to say that within the microcosm of software, for literally all of the basic peices of technology and most other peices there is an open source version.  And the impact has been abslolutely spectacular and far beyond even the number of people using the software directly, which is very high (like the fraction of people using apache).   It has greatly reduced the price and increased the quality of closed source software by feirce, unstoppable competition, providing enourmous benefit.  

    Now what if that could happen in all other corners of civilization? Yes there are some differences for hardware but I do not think they are anywhere near as big as they are sometimes made out to be, especially with regards to the development process.  Once you realize there isn't in fact any distinction between time and money really, true fans or whatever donate their time in a different way is all.  And software has inherent costs of copying and distribution, in a way, if I want to install windows it takes a long time, it may mess things up or required configuring too, equivalent to a lot of money, no matter how cheap I got it (the software itsself is the design now, not the product, it is no good if you never install it now is it?). The costs are different in size but not so much in kind really when you do a completely fair accounting.  Indeed, it's why I never "bought" Win 7, even though I already have a copy of it.  I still use XP!

    As for the existing problems or lack of optimality for OSE, I agree they are there but it's like a bad movie.  Yes, it seems poorly done in some waysand like it should have been easy to do better, but even getting to the stage where you made a movie that other people heard about just takes enormous training for the people involved, and time and resources, as OSE seems to have.  Plus it's chicken and egg to some degree - I noticed that the talke Marcin gave so well was itsself a collaborative work, which is pretty neat.  But if the contributors on that project were not there would the ted talk have ever happened?

    Also, I don't think the ted talk is that much of an asset anymore.  It provided a great spike of publicity which brought in a lot of new people, but it has faded now, as evidenced by the ebb in the number of people joining the wiki.  It's an opportunity that has come and gone, and it woudl be nice to have harnessed it better but that was the best that could be done with the resources available.  I wrote a blog for a little while back there and once got on the front page of a massive site that gets tens of thousand of hits a day.  300 and something clicked through total.  A week later traffic was back to normal.  Nobody checks past the front page.   Marcin's TED fellowship will continue to help bring in extra funding and help a lot but it's still just a drop, well maybe a teaspoon or a cup, in the bucket. Which sort of grows at time goes on....  Okay so it's not a perfect analogy.

    Ultimately we will need multiple organizations I think, an ecology of them, anyway, although it's perfectly reasonable and good to put your effort where it can have the most effect, which is improving this one.  But there is risk and unforseen problems too, in any change.  We can add more technologies outside the GVCS just by adding them to the wiki now, though that does seem pretty impotent I have to acknowledge.  If there is something in particular you could do like the lasersaur people and start some project independently I guess because honestly being under the OSE banner does not provide that much benefit I think.  Eventual prototyping capacity at FeF and easier communication with people who want to hear what you have to say about needing certain documents (like I did on NiFe batteries) or whatever I guess is certainly something.

    If you have ideas for energy, the community design space exploration thing I am trying to persuade Marcin to experiment with may help with that when applied to other projects, to get other approaches not yet thought of by the community duly considered.  
  • gregor, I definitely understand your feelings but the race has barely started. The TED talk is enormously important not because it gets people to join directly, but because it is a great (the talk really was great for what it was, a 30 minute expansion another time would be well in order) introduction to the idea and brand. Branding is all so important because it is a quick way of getting people to join together in common effort. Just think about how the *nix community was propelled by a penguin. Apache protects its brand so fiercely that any project at its top level is like having a gold seal. I have some experience with the blog analogy you mention, but that's different because it is not about a brand nor about a way of life. OSE potentially is.

    TED itself is an enormously powerful brand. My grandparents can barely use email but they have a Roku box setup and watch TED talks for fun on their TV. Every engineering or science college student watches them while studying (or trying to delay starting) and it has become common dinner fodder with the upper middle class set. 

    I think that turning OSE into a brand could have great impact. For myself I know of multiple projects that could potentially fit under it. I know several bloggers that have a readership of hundreds of thousands who I have told about it and described it as a "potential wave of the future." I know several engineering professors that I can guarantee would be open to having their students do projects under the banner, especially if cross-linked with the social development (and perhaps even history/anthropology) departments. All of those are primary connections from just myself, the secondary ones -- let alone the secondary ones of everyone involved with OSE -- would be massive. 

    The key is to follow up on the good idea and turn it into actual things that people can see working and feel that they can contribute in a lasting fashion. These things don't have to be planned now, the opportunities will just arise as needed. And the opportunities will start exploding much sooner than it feels like it should because the financial and resource systems of society are buckling so much yet again. Once they crack then people will no longer lie to themselves that it is a temporary hiccup but look for alternative systems to contribute their time, knowledge and money, and at that point it'll be too late to set up anything new because there will be a mad rush of creation and destruction that floods everything. 

    These things don't have to be planned and managed for now, because avenues can't be predicted. But ultimately there needs to be a foundation that can easily flow into the cracks when they appear. I'm trying to get a feel for if that interests OSE.
  • The 'score system' took me a few minutes to find and I have read it before, but here it is:

  • Thanks, but it's unclear whether this is just an internal process or not. If I have some suggestions for new things should I sit down and evaluate them in these terms?
  • I am not sure if the GVCS is fluid, but if you put any ideas in these terms, it should give them more weight.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion