Talk:FundCamp PurposeProcessPlatform - Revision history

FredericBaud: Reverted edits by 85.17.186.161 (Talk); changed back to last version by FredericBaud

FredericBaud — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:43:37 GMT

Reverted edits by 85.17.186.161 (Talk); changed back to last version by FredericBaud

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 11 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	casitchize
	Please do edit the article as much as you see fit, add to, re-arrange, clarify. I think I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together fairly quickly, but want to make sure I get all of the components to match what we need and are looking for --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 13:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)		Please do edit the article as much as you see fit, add to, re-arrange, clarify. I think I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together fairly quickly, but want to make sure I get all of the components to match what we need and are looking for --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 13:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

85.17.186.161 at 13:06, 11 October 2007

85.17.186.161 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:06:50 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 11 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	casitchize
	Please do edit the article as much as you see fit, add to, re-arrange, clarify. I think I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together fairly quickly, but want to make sure I get all of the components to match what we need and are looking for --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 13:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)		Please do edit the article as much as you see fit, add to, re-arrange, clarify. I think I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together fairly quickly, but want to make sure I get all of the components to match what we need and are looking for --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 13:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

FredericBaud at 16:33, 21 September 2007

FredericBaud — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:33:10 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 21 September 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Hi Sam, just started to edit the article. We'll have to spend more time to really get more into it, but that's a first shot to get the ball rolling. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 04:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)		Hi Sam, just started to edit the article. We'll have to spend more time to really get more into it, but that's a first shot to get the ball rolling. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 04:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

-	''Note:'' I think we should not ~~call (~~ConsensusPolling and Predictionmarkets) the "Jury process". I believe only the investors should be in charge of the Jury and are responsable to allocate the funds they committed. Open processes could be used to evaluate the different projects, but they should not be used to make the actual decision. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 08:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)	+	''Note:'' I think we should not use ConsensusPolling and Predictionmarkets within the "Jury process". I believe only the investors should be in charge of the Jury and are responsable to allocate the funds they committed. Open processes could be used to evaluate the different projects, but they should not be used to make the actual decision. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 08:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)


-	Agreed, although, I know of some people, who are interested in being investors, who would like to try an experiment where they would be a component in the actual decision-makign process. But maybe this idea is possibly for the future, and too complex to integrate into this platform at this time. So, we'll definitely keep those processes as Due ~~Dilligence~~, just as you describe. --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 09:38, 21 September 2007 (EDT)	+	Agreed, although, I know of some people, who are interested in being investors, who would like to try an experiment where they would be a component in the actual decision-makign process. But maybe this idea is possibly for the future, and too complex to integrate into this platform at this time. So, we'll definitely keep those processes as Due Diligence, just as you describe. --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 09:38, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	I understand the potential to use this for decision making as well. But probably for a subsequent extension. I was referring only to the FundCamp process that is probably a good starting point, but of course not the end of the journey. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 12:33, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

SamRose: Ok about Due Dilligence, although I do know of people who would like to experiment with collab decision making

SamRose — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:38:37 GMT

Ok about Due Dilligence, although I do know of people who would like to experiment with collab decision making

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 21 September 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:

	Hi Sam, just started to edit the article. We'll have to spend more time to really get more into it, but that's a first shot to get the ball rolling. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 04:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)		Hi Sam, just started to edit the article. We'll have to spend more time to really get more into it, but that's a first shot to get the ball rolling. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 04:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	''Note:'' I think we should not call (ConsensusPolling and Predictionmarkets) the "Jury process". I believe only the investors should be in charge of the Jury and are responsable to allocate the funds they committed. Open processes could be used to evaluate the different projects, but they should not be used to make the actual decision. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 08:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	Agreed, although, I know of some people, who are interested in being investors, who would like to try an experiment where they would be a component in the actual decision-makign process. But maybe this idea is possibly for the future, and too complex to integrate into this platform at this time. So, we'll definitely keep those processes as Due Dilligence, just as you describe. --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 09:38, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

FredericBaud at 08:46, 21 September 2007

FredericBaud — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:46:40 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 08:46, 21 September 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	Please do edit the article as ~~mcuh~~ as you see fit, add to, re-arrange, clarify. I think I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together fairly quickly, but want to make sure I get all of the components to match what we need and are looking for --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 13:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)	+	Please do edit the article as much as you see fit, add to, re-arrange, clarify. I think I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together fairly quickly, but want to make sure I get all of the components to match what we need and are looking for --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 13:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	Hi Sam, just started to edit the article. We'll have to spend more time to really get more into it, but that's a first shot to get the ball rolling. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 04:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

SamRose: Please do edit mercilessly!

SamRose — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:40:05 GMT

Please do edit mercilessly!

New page

Please do edit the article as mcuh as you see fit, add to, re-arrange, clarify. I think I have a pretty good idea about how to put this together fairly quickly, but want to make sure I get all of the components to match what we need and are looking for --[[User:SamRose|SamRose]] 13:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 21 September 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Hi Sam, just started to edit the article. We'll have to spend more time to really get more into it, but that's a first shot to get the ball rolling. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 04:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)		Hi Sam, just started to edit the article. We'll have to spend more time to really get more into it, but that's a first shot to get the ball rolling. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 04:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

-	''Note:'' I think we should not ~~call (~~ConsensusPolling and Predictionmarkets) the "Jury process". I believe only the investors should be in charge of the Jury and are responsable to allocate the funds they committed. Open processes could be used to evaluate the different projects, but they should not be used to make the actual decision. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 08:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)	+	''Note:'' I think we should not use ConsensusPolling and Predictionmarkets within the "Jury process". I believe only the investors should be in charge of the Jury and are responsable to allocate the funds they committed. Open processes could be used to evaluate the different projects, but they should not be used to make the actual decision. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 08:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)


-	Agreed, although, I know of some people, who are interested in being investors, who would like to try an experiment where they would be a component in the actual decision-makign process. But maybe this idea is possibly for the future, and too complex to integrate into this platform at this time. So, we'll definitely keep those processes as Due ~~Dilligence~~, just as you describe. --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 09:38, 21 September 2007 (EDT)	+	Agreed, although, I know of some people, who are interested in being investors, who would like to try an experiment where they would be a component in the actual decision-makign process. But maybe this idea is possibly for the future, and too complex to integrate into this platform at this time. So, we'll definitely keep those processes as Due Diligence, just as you describe. --[[User:SamRose\|SamRose]] 09:38, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	I understand the potential to use this for decision making as well. But probably for a subsequent extension. I was referring only to the FundCamp process that is probably a good starting point, but of course not the end of the journey. -- [[User:FredericBaud\|FredericBaud]] 12:33, 21 September 2007 (EDT)