We calculate the collective intelligence of Habr (and any other organization of people)
Peter Hinches (Pieter Hintjens), author of the book “Social Architecture”, based on his many years of experience managing the open source community, offers his own organization evaluation system.
I am going to propose a tool for measuring community intelligence, in other words, how accurately and effectively the community works in any given period of time. It also shows how pleasant it will be to participate in the community.
')
To demonstrate it, I rank several networks, organizations, websites and online communities. This is not science, just a creative and careless estimate. As everyone knows, 87% of statistics are invented locally, and 91% of people accept this without question. I selected the following victims:
I will not judge the value of a single community. It is impossible, and will be deceptive. Twitter’s mission to “recruit more subscribers” sounds weaker than Wikipedia’s “gathering the knowledge of the entire world.” Once formed, an intelligent and flexible crowd can easily create new missions, for example, “overthrow the dictator”. The online community may be valuable (for humanity) not because of its products, but by itself. In the case of Wikipedia or ZeroMQ, it is difficult to separate the crowd from the content. And in the case of Twitter, this is obvious. Content is transient and often useless, but the crowd is not.
All criteria (Remixability, Non-tribalism, transparency, etc.) are described in the publication Translation of the book Social Architecture: Chapter 1. Toolkit
I came up with this evaluation table:
If we can measure the KII of a community or organization, then we can improve it by paying attention to aspects with low marks. In theory, this should make the organization smarter, and its members happier. Of course, it is quite characteristic that a military organization can work only with low CIA. A smart army will most likely just go home and switch to Reddit.
Collective Intelligence Index or CII (CII)
I am going to propose a tool for measuring community intelligence, in other words, how accurately and effectively the community works in any given period of time. It also shows how pleasant it will be to participate in the community.
')
To demonstrate it, I rank several networks, organizations, websites and online communities. This is not science, just a creative and careless estimate. As everyone knows, 87% of statistics are invented locally, and 91% of people accept this without question. I selected the following victims:
- Wikipedia
- Fashion industry
- Nigerian cinema, so-called. Nollywood (Nollywood)
- Lawyers as a profession
- Hollywood Film Industry
- The Fox News Network
- Military (in some random eastern country)
I will not judge the value of a single community. It is impossible, and will be deceptive. Twitter’s mission to “recruit more subscribers” sounds weaker than Wikipedia’s “gathering the knowledge of the entire world.” Once formed, an intelligent and flexible crowd can easily create new missions, for example, “overthrow the dictator”. The online community may be valuable (for humanity) not because of its products, but by itself. In the case of Wikipedia or ZeroMQ, it is difficult to separate the crowd from the content. And in the case of Twitter, this is obvious. Content is transient and often useless, but the crowd is not.
All criteria (Remixability, Non-tribalism, transparency, etc.) are described in the publication Translation of the book Social Architecture: Chapter 1. Toolkit
Cheat Sheet by criteria
Clear mission
The starting point for creating any community is the formulation of its mission. It defines the goals that we share, even before joining the project. It’s like a website header or a movie slogan. For example, the title of Reddit sounds like this: “the main page of the Internet” is an ambitious mission, which, however, is completed. Facebook slogan: “Helps you connect and share with people in your life.”
Free participation
Having decided on a mission, you need to test it in the real world. This means you need to give a short but convincing answer to the problem you are aiming at. I call it "sowing." This process has two main objectives. First, start collecting idealists and pioneers (mostly those who were so insane to believe you) into the community. Secondly, prove or disprove your mission.
Projects can fail for many reasons. But the main reason - the underlying idea or mission was not as amazing as people expected. Failure is fine, even great, unless it has cost you several years of your life. Planting a seed and showing it to only a few people is not enough, because most people will not criticize. Out of pity. However, ask them to spend at least a few hours of their time to make the project better, and if they don’t say yes, then you will understand their true attitude.
Projects can fail for many reasons. But the main reason - the underlying idea or mission was not as amazing as people expected. Failure is fine, even great, unless it has cost you several years of your life. Planting a seed and showing it to only a few people is not enough, because most people will not criticize. Out of pity. However, ask them to spend at least a few hours of their time to make the project better, and if they don’t say yes, then you will understand their true attitude.
Transparency
Transparency is very important for quickly receiving criticism of ideas and progress in work. If several people from the team leave and work on something together for some time, for example, a couple of days, it's okay, but when it comes to weeks, then what they are doing should be presented to the group as a fait accompli. If one person does this, the group may simply brush it off. But if two or more - it becomes difficult to disown bad ideas. Secrecy and incompetence go hand in hand. Groups working in secret will not comprehend wisdom.
Free members
Money is a fun thing. Too little - and the community will starve (I will come back to this later). Too much - decomposition will begin. It is necessary to understand why each of the participants is doing this at all. What are their economic motives? Even in voluntary communities, each participant pursues their own interests.
At ZeroMQ, we initially started with a low-paying group and two years later we came to a voluntary community, pragmatically - if not to say cynically - intentionally spending money and being forced to dismiss developers. Some of them were dissolved in other companies, some returned as participants, and the project became more exciting and fun than it was before. People worked on ZeroMQ because they needed it for their own projects - having spent some time improving it, they won or saved many times more.
When you work for someone, you will do what he or she wants. When you work for yourself, you do what you need. This is a huge difference. People with money, but without skills or taste, are the husks of society. We despise paid Wikipedia members, paid bloggers and moderators on Reddit, because we know that their opinions are almost by definition a lie. Will a blogger paid by Hollywood criticize the new summer blockbuster?
I have nothing against hired employees. However, if you are aiming at creating the largest, most successful community, then you need participants who will try for honest, understandable reasons. If the filmmaker comes to Reddit to discuss the film - great. If its marketers come in to rub critical comments, that's disgusting.
At ZeroMQ, we initially started with a low-paying group and two years later we came to a voluntary community, pragmatically - if not to say cynically - intentionally spending money and being forced to dismiss developers. Some of them were dissolved in other companies, some returned as participants, and the project became more exciting and fun than it was before. People worked on ZeroMQ because they needed it for their own projects - having spent some time improving it, they won or saved many times more.
When you work for someone, you will do what he or she wants. When you work for yourself, you do what you need. This is a huge difference. People with money, but without skills or taste, are the husks of society. We despise paid Wikipedia members, paid bloggers and moderators on Reddit, because we know that their opinions are almost by definition a lie. Will a blogger paid by Hollywood criticize the new summer blockbuster?
I have nothing against hired employees. However, if you are aiming at creating the largest, most successful community, then you need participants who will try for honest, understandable reasons. If the filmmaker comes to Reddit to discuss the film - great. If its marketers come in to rub critical comments, that's disgusting.
Freedom to work with materials (remixability)
The group needs many agreements to work together. I call them "protocols." Perhaps the most important of these for the creative community is the ability to recycle material (remixability). Whether it be music, art, images, videos, comments, programs, or wiki pages, the following question will arise: “What kind of copyright license is behind this material, and how will this affect the community?”.
Roughly speaking, there are three types of copyright licenses:
Users prefer the free to take model, because it allows them to use the content as they please without reciprocal obligations. Imagine a DJ who releases a popular track on the model of free to take. Then the company makes a remix and uses it in advertising. And this remix will be closed for use. Now, the DJ will not be able to rework this remix and may not even be able to play this remix.
Yet communities work better with the third model, because then users become members. With a share-alike license, a DJ could use a remix, remix it and turn it into a disco hit. Knowledge and ideas flow in all directions, and do not flow from the community into a stagnant swamp. This is a powerful current, and this is especially important for those of us who build communities with a minimum budget. If you are a large company that invests a lot of money in the community, then the free to take model will suit you better.
The group needs many agreements to work together. I call them "protocols." Perhaps the most important of these for the creative community is the ability to recycle material (remixability). Whether it be music, art, images, videos, comments, programs, or wiki pages, the following question will arise: “What kind of copyright license is behind this material, and how will this affect the community?”.
Roughly speaking, there are three types of copyright licenses:
- A) license locked down does not allow to recycle material. This is the old way of doing business, and it still dominates the business.
- B) the free to take license allows one-way processing. This is the dominant model for many open source communities.
- C) The share-alike license allows two-way processing. This is the predominant model for free software communities, such as ZeroMQ, and for many art communities (although this may be an unwritten arrangement).
Users prefer the free to take model, because it allows them to use the content as they please without reciprocal obligations. Imagine a DJ who releases a popular track on the model of free to take. Then the company makes a remix and uses it in advertising. And this remix will be closed for use. Now, the DJ will not be able to rework this remix and may not even be able to play this remix.
Yet communities work better with the third model, because then users become members. With a share-alike license, a DJ could use a remix, remix it and turn it into a disco hit. Knowledge and ideas flow in all directions, and do not flow from the community into a stagnant swamp. This is a powerful current, and this is especially important for those of us who build communities with a minimum budget. If you are a large company that invests a lot of money in the community, then the free to take model will suit you better.
Protocol clarity
Good protocols allow visitors to participate without prior approval. They resolve destructive conflicts and turn them into useful contests. The fact that anarchists can join a smart crowd as successfully as any other is explained by the fact that the crowd can develop its own rules. Usually these rules relate to recycling, identity, rank, etc. No matter what form they have, good rules are simple, clear, clearly stated and approved by everyone.
If you are creating a software project, you can take an existing manual, for example, the C4 protocol , which we did for ZeroMQ. Or you can start with a minimum of instructions and add them as you identify the problems that the community is facing. By the way, so it was with the leadership of Wikipedia . Some rules must be established from the very beginning (for example, copyright and participation). Others may be invented as necessary (for example, a conflict resolution procedure). Difficult, aimless or unwritten rules poison a group. They create a space for disputes, confuse people and increase the cost of entering or leaving a group.
If you are creating a software project, you can take an existing manual, for example, the C4 protocol , which we did for ZeroMQ. Or you can start with a minimum of instructions and add them as you identify the problems that the community is facing. By the way, so it was with the leadership of Wikipedia . Some rules must be established from the very beginning (for example, copyright and participation). Others may be invented as necessary (for example, a conflict resolution procedure). Difficult, aimless or unwritten rules poison a group. They create a space for disputes, confuse people and increase the cost of entering or leaving a group.
Competence of power
Without the authorities, the rules are null and void. The founders of the community and the main participants are their de facto representatives. If they abuse their position, they lose participants - and the project dies or forks, depending on different rules. Power must be scalable (that is, be able to cover the activities of a group of any size) and allow transfer as the group grows and changes.
While we use power to build a playground, many groups use power to control their members, keeping them in a group and forcing them to meet the standards. Favorite technique in cults is to randomly punish and reward people so that they are confused and stop asking administration questions.
While we use power to build a playground, many groups use power to control their members, keeping them in a group and forcing them to meet the standards. Favorite technique in cults is to randomly punish and reward people so that they are confused and stop asking administration questions.
Non-tribalism
Membership should be a symbol of the union, and not serve as a certificate. As Mr. Spock often pointed out, emotions are not logical. Some groups are guided by logically sound goals, while others are ruled by emotional factors, such as pressure from members of their circle, herd instinct, and even collective hysteria. The defining moment seems to be the relationship between the group and its members. We can reveal this by asking: are the participants “exclusively committed” to the group? Exclusive commitment means giving more importance to the existence of the group, and not its work. Such a commitment ends in conflict with other groups.
Self-organization
Some people like being told what to do. The best participants and teams themselves choose their tasks. A successful society recognizes problems and organizes itself to solve them. Moreover, it does this faster and better than any hierarchically controlled structure. This means that the community should accept assistance in any area, without restrictions.
Top-down distribution of tasks is antipattern with many inherent weaknesses. It prevents individuals from acting when they find a problem. It is characterized by feuds, where the work and the necessary resources belong to individuals. It creates long communication chains that do not allow responding quickly. He needs a layer of managers, just to connect decision makers with those who will do the work.
Top-down distribution of tasks is antipattern with many inherent weaknesses. It prevents individuals from acting when they find a problem. It is characterized by feuds, where the work and the necessary resources belong to individuals. It creates long communication chains that do not allow responding quickly. He needs a layer of managers, just to connect decision makers with those who will do the work.
Tolerance
In a mixed group, conflicting opinions arise, and a healthy group covers and processes these conflicts. Critics, iconoclasts, vandals, spies and trolls keep the group on their toes. They can be a catalyst for the involvement of other participants. Wikipedia is flourishing thanks to, and not contrary to, those who click “Edit” in order to turn the article into a jumble. This is a classic anti-pattern, overwhelming the ideas and views of the minority, using the premise that they are "dangerous." In addition, it inevitably suppresses new ideas. The logic is usually that group coherence is more important than its diversity. Then it turns out that they do not react to errors, but only become more isolated. In fact, a group may be more important than the results of its activities if it is diverse and open to new arguments. This is a difficult lesson that is useful to society as a whole: there are no dangerous judgments, there are dangerous answers.
How communities deal with trolls and vandals is one thing. Dealing with the fundamental differences of opinion is another. I said earlier that conflicting missions can be a problem. The best solution I know is to turn a conflict into a match. For example, the Google Chrome browser has become an easier, faster alternative to Firefox, which has become bloated and slower. Then the Firefox team got down to business with the mind, and now Firefox is faster than Chrome.
How communities deal with trolls and vandals is one thing. Dealing with the fundamental differences of opinion is another. I said earlier that conflicting missions can be a problem. The best solution I know is to turn a conflict into a match. For example, the Google Chrome browser has become an easier, faster alternative to Firefox, which has become bloated and slower. Then the Firefox team got down to business with the mind, and now Firefox is faster than Chrome.
Measurable success
All this is good: try to turn conflict into a match. However, you need to provide group members with information on how well they are doing. The best tools, such as GitHub, show the exact number of people who are observing or flagging a project or starting a branch project (reflecting different levels of interest and commitment).
Of course, the Web has always been concerned with “hits” and traffic analysis, which shows the popularity of a site or page. This makes it easier to measure the success of an online project. In the old days of the industrial age, teams received feedback on their work from superiors. What turned into grimaces before the authorities: you will be rewarded more for obedience than for diligence. To make your bosses happy so that your salary will be raised is not a healthy attitude.
Of course, the Web has always been concerned with “hits” and traffic analysis, which shows the popularity of a site or page. This makes it easier to measure the success of an online project. In the old days of the industrial age, teams received feedback on their work from superiors. What turned into grimaces before the authorities: you will be rewarded more for obedience than for diligence. To make your bosses happy so that your salary will be raised is not a healthy attitude.
High award
There are many reasons why people participate in communities. The prevailing motivation is the need to admire for the success achieved. As an individual, and as part of a team. Success is a relative phenomenon, so we need a metric, some high score, which people will be guided by in their aspirations.
In the ZeroMQ community, we did not attach much importance to scoring, although the participants get more love with a greater contribution to the common cause. This is recorded in their track record. Participating in ZeroMQ can help you find a good job.
Reddit, like many other sites, uses "karma", which shows how many votes received an account for its publications and behavior. It works pretty well. Some sites do not show all the karma to prevent people from trying to bypass the system and get a higher score. Some sites, such as StackOverflow, are extremely addicted to “gamification” using orders, high scores, achievements, etc. I think it gives away manipulation and distracts from the mission of the community. People should be involved, striving for the success of the project, and not to a large number of game points.
Social commitment - to make groups of different people happy - a task that brings great satisfaction, and it does not pollute the planet. Industrial society is aimed at material rewards (higher wages, more house, better car), linked to a hierarchical structure. It is effective because we all love wealth or we have an inferiority complex; whatever the reason, the desire to make the boss happier means taking less risk.
In the ZeroMQ community, we did not attach much importance to scoring, although the participants get more love with a greater contribution to the common cause. This is recorded in their track record. Participating in ZeroMQ can help you find a good job.
Reddit, like many other sites, uses "karma", which shows how many votes received an account for its publications and behavior. It works pretty well. Some sites do not show all the karma to prevent people from trying to bypass the system and get a higher score. Some sites, such as StackOverflow, are extremely addicted to “gamification” using orders, high scores, achievements, etc. I think it gives away manipulation and distracts from the mission of the community. People should be involved, striving for the success of the project, and not to a large number of game points.
Social commitment - to make groups of different people happy - a task that brings great satisfaction, and it does not pollute the planet. Industrial society is aimed at material rewards (higher wages, more house, better car), linked to a hierarchical structure. It is effective because we all love wealth or we have an inferiority complex; whatever the reason, the desire to make the boss happier means taking less risk.
Decentralization
In his book, Surowiecki explains that the Columbia shuttle crash was caused by a bureaucracy in the hierarchical management structure of NASA, which ignored the views of ordinary engineers. If a group is decentralized, its members are more independent, they get more different inputs, and they are diverse from the outset.
If a group is not geographically scattered, then it becomes homogeneous, where all members have similar inputs and triggers. The similarity allows the minority to dominate the mood of the group and discard non-ordinary ideas. It allows him to literally intimidate or deceive the majority, thereby subduing him. The requirement that all team members sit in the same office, department or building is an old antipattern that is difficult to overcome. That is why all cults are so united.
If a group is not geographically scattered, then it becomes homogeneous, where all members have similar inputs and triggers. The similarity allows the minority to dominate the mood of the group and discard non-ordinary ideas. It allows him to literally intimidate or deceive the majority, thereby subduing him. The requirement that all team members sit in the same office, department or building is an old antipattern that is difficult to overcome. That is why all cults are so united.
Free working environment
The community needs space to grow. In the realities of the Internet, this is usually a site or a set of sites and related structures like email lists. mail, blogs, etc. We see this becoming a very cheap or even free way to create “space” in a digital society. The question is whether individuals can create their own personal spaces within the community. If so, will they bring more value to the overall project?
Freedom to create a structure annoys people who believe that it introduces chaos and confusion. However, if you use conventional structures (see the next item), there is no damage to the participants from this. But what is harmful is the creation of a structure based on an unreasonable opinion about its benefits to people. When I headed the FFII association in 2005, the previous president created several hundred email lists. mail, so he noted those projects on which, in his opinion, people had to work. This did not correspond to how people wanted to be organized, and it was very difficult to remove these lists and create new ones that we actually needed.
Of course, industrial age groups distributed work and resources to carry it out. Any new infrastructure - such as a website, email list. mail or wiki - requires approval and determination. It may even require legal valuation of copyrights and patents. The price is high, so people are reluctant to take risks. It turns out that without experimenting and continuing to work, they tie their hands.
In the ZeroMQ community, only one click is required to create a new project. In Wikipedia, you can create a new page simply by clicking on “create a page”. Both projects have mechanisms to protect against accidental debris. Wikipedia conducts a rather aggressive cleaning of new pages. ZeroMQ has a special procedure for submitting a project to the official community organization.
Freedom to create a structure annoys people who believe that it introduces chaos and confusion. However, if you use conventional structures (see the next item), there is no damage to the participants from this. But what is harmful is the creation of a structure based on an unreasonable opinion about its benefits to people. When I headed the FFII association in 2005, the previous president created several hundred email lists. mail, so he noted those projects on which, in his opinion, people had to work. This did not correspond to how people wanted to be organized, and it was very difficult to remove these lists and create new ones that we actually needed.
Of course, industrial age groups distributed work and resources to carry it out. Any new infrastructure - such as a website, email list. mail or wiki - requires approval and determination. It may even require legal valuation of copyrights and patents. The price is high, so people are reluctant to take risks. It turns out that without experimenting and continuing to work, they tie their hands.
In the ZeroMQ community, only one click is required to create a new project. In Wikipedia, you can create a new page simply by clicking on “create a page”. Both projects have mechanisms to protect against accidental debris. Wikipedia conducts a rather aggressive cleaning of new pages. ZeroMQ has a special procedure for submitting a project to the official community organization.
Standard structure
As the community grows, it becomes more difficult to direct it. If you are doing a single, constantly evolving project consisting of many separate tasks, then it becomes more and more difficult with time. Imagine a medieval castle. This problem is especially acute for large companies developing a project that sometimes forget about the money spent.
Confusion scares people away - it becomes very difficult to understand. The solution is to use standard structures, having learned that once, you can always recognize. Not any structure will do. It can be difficult for us to learn structures deeper than three or four levels. However, we are happy to explore very broad systems with thousands or millions of blocks, if these blocks correspond to individual tasks or projects.
Imagine a city.
Successful online communities are cities, not castles. Wikipedia consists of several wikis with a specific language, many are divided into millions of pages (projects), each structured in sections, discussion, history, notes, etc. Several people can work on one page at a time or one person can slowly edit or take care of a dozen or a hundred pages.
GitHub manages millions of software repositories (“repositories”) grouped by user or organization accounts, and each has its own structure (source files, documentation, etc.), which often depends on the language (Java repositories use the same style, C-repositories - other, etc.). One repository can consist of several participants, people can work with different numbers of repositories. The ZeroMQ community is an organization that consists of a growing number of projects.
Confusion scares people away - it becomes very difficult to understand. The solution is to use standard structures, having learned that once, you can always recognize. Not any structure will do. It can be difficult for us to learn structures deeper than three or four levels. However, we are happy to explore very broad systems with thousands or millions of blocks, if these blocks correspond to individual tasks or projects.
Imagine a city.
Successful online communities are cities, not castles. Wikipedia consists of several wikis with a specific language, many are divided into millions of pages (projects), each structured in sections, discussion, history, notes, etc. Several people can work on one page at a time or one person can slowly edit or take care of a dozen or a hundred pages.
GitHub manages millions of software repositories (“repositories”) grouped by user or organization accounts, and each has its own structure (source files, documentation, etc.), which often depends on the language (Java repositories use the same style, C-repositories - other, etc.). One repository can consist of several participants, people can work with different numbers of repositories. The ZeroMQ community is an organization that consists of a growing number of projects.
Fluency learning
When ZeroMQ was just beginning, it was just one project with a single README page. Today it is a hundred or more small projects, each of which has its own documentation, community and dynamics. Getting into an adult project can be difficult. As I said, the use of standard structures is vital. Moreover, you will need to follow a rather specific trajectory during the study, from easy to more complex, from the idle visitor stage to the expert participant. Consider your community a computer game where the difficulty levels increase in proportion to the winnings. People will play "according to their level." If you do everything right, you will attract many. If wrong, then the experts will be bored at the easy level, and beginners will be deterred by the difficulty at the start.
Positivity
Sometimes there is the temptation to aggressively agitate people to join the community. In the end, many people like sharp arguments, especially when they are sure they are right. Some groups develop at the expense of their hostility and negativity towards other groups, especially if there is still a prehistory. The tone that you set as the founder will last for a long time. If you promote your community by attacking competitors, you will attract definitely minded people, and this attitude will develop. Sooner or later the negative will turn back inside and can be destructive for the community.
Sense of humor
Have you ever wondered why there is a need to joke in a person, why people who never laugh seem strange and inhospitable? My theory is that we all use humor as a way to defuse a situation (which has an obvious advantage for survival). People will not beat the joker - only if the joke is old or poorly told. Seriously, humor negates tribalism and emotions, and allows people to work together, even if they are very different from each other. A common joke can create strong connections, because it shows the similarity of views. Humor is an integral part of society and reduces stress.
Minimalism
Racing cars are made faster by losing weight and not increasing power. You can make your community easier, faster and more flexible by strictly following the dogma of minimalism in relation to your work. It may look like laziness, but it is often more difficult not to do something fun than to get involved in it without thinking.
The general rule - always make the minimum amount of work, which will be enough for everything to work. The rest will be done when people start using your work and complaining. This applies both to your seeding project and to every change you make. Feedback — more than your own opinion — is a better indication of where efforts should be made.
The general rule - always make the minimum amount of work, which will be enough for everything to work. The rest will be done when people start using your work and complaining. This applies both to your seeding project and to every change you make. Feedback — more than your own opinion — is a better indication of where efforts should be made.
Reasonable financing
If the funds are insufficient, the community will die of exhaustion. If there are too many of them, then, as I said, it will decompose. It requires sensitive balance. We can motivate people with money to a certain extent. After that, only psychopaths will show a proportional response. This is the flaw in the naive theory of capitalism that "the more money the better." In my case, the most treacherous were those whom I paid the most.
The first thing you need to do to reduce costs is to abandon the idea of legal entities, offices and employees, unless you really need them. They will not only eat up any of your funds, but they will impede your work in creating only an online community.
Second, invest time and money in the community only if there is no other way out. This may include trademark registration, hosting payment, or a fee for doing work that no one else can handle.
And finally: beware of people who are willing to take on serious risks without demanding an appropriate reward - they tend to burn out.
The first thing you need to do to reduce costs is to abandon the idea of legal entities, offices and employees, unless you really need them. They will not only eat up any of your funds, but they will impede your work in creating only an online community.
Second, invest time and money in the community only if there is no other way out. This may include trademark registration, hosting payment, or a fee for doing work that no one else can handle.
And finally: beware of people who are willing to take on serious risks without demanding an appropriate reward - they tend to burn out.
I came up with this evaluation table:
| Criterion | 1.Wk | 2.Tw | 3.Rd | 4.Fb | 5.Fa | 6.Nw | 7.Lw | 8.Hw | 9.FN | 10.Ml |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear mission | five | 3 | 2 | one | 2 | one | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Free participation | five | five | five | five | four | 3 | 0 | one | 2 | 2 |
| Transparency | five | 3 | five | one | 2 | one | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Free members | five | five | five | five | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | one | 0 |
| Remixability | five | five | five | four | four | 3 | 3 | one | one | 0 |
| Protocol clarity | five | five | five | four | four | 3 | 2 | 3 | one | four |
| Competence of power | five | four | five | 3 | four | 3 | one | one | 0 | one |
| Non-tribalism | four | five | five | five | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Self-organization | five | five | five | five | four | four | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Tolerance | five | five | five | five | four | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Measurable success | five | five | five | five | five | five | four | five | five | 2 |
| High award | 3 | five | five | five | four | 3 | 3 | 2 | one | one |
| Decentralization | five | five | five | five | five | one | one | one | 0 | one |
| Free working environment | five | five | five | five | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Standard structure | four | five | five | five | 3 | 3 | 0 | one | 0 | 0 |
| Fluency learning | five | five | five | four | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | one | five |
| Positivity | five | five | five | five | five | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Sense of humor | five | five | five | five | 2 | 3 | 0 | one | one | 0 |
| Minimalism | five | five | four | four | 3 | four | one | one | 3 | 0 |
| Reasonable financing | five | four | 3 | 3 | five | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Final score | 96 | 94 | 94 | 84 | 71 | 56 | 28 | 34 | 18 | 20 |
Option ergonomic table with color from @Iceg
If we can measure the KII of a community or organization, then we can improve it by paying attention to aspects with low marks. In theory, this should make the organization smarter, and its members happier. Of course, it is quite characteristic that a military organization can work only with low CIA. A smart army will most likely just go home and switch to Reddit.
I invite readers to evaluate KI Habr in the questionnaire and discuss in the comments.
(You can also analyze the organization of your project.)Translated Chapters
Translation of the book "Social Architecture":
- Preface. Crowd wisdom
- Chapter 1. Toolkit
- Chapter 2
- Emotional burnout of volunteers
- How to capture / protect an open-source project
- The myth of individual intelligence - Chapter 3
- ZeroMQ Community
- Psychology of software architecture
- Importance of contracts
- 4 steps to a self-governing community - Chapter 5
- Design, development, innovation
- Stratagem for success open source projects - Chapter 6. Living Systems
about the author
“Unfortunately, we do not choose death for ourselves, but we can meet her with dignity so that we will be remembered as men.”
- the movie "Gladiator"
Pieter Hintjens - Belgian developer, writer. He held the position of CEO and chief software designer at iMatix , a company that produces free software , such as the ZeroMQ library (the library takes care of some of the data buffering, queuing, connection establishment and recovery, etc.), OpenAMQ, Libero , GSL code generator , and the Xitami web service.
Much detail here: Thirty five years I, as a necromancer, inhaled life in dead iron with the help code
Peter Hinchens website
Wikipedia article
Thoughts and ideas of Peter Hinchens on Habré:
- the movie "Gladiator"
Pieter Hintjens - Belgian developer, writer. He held the position of CEO and chief software designer at iMatix , a company that produces free software , such as the ZeroMQ library (the library takes care of some of the data buffering, queuing, connection establishment and recovery, etc.), OpenAMQ, Libero , GSL code generator , and the Xitami web service.
- Author of more than 30 protocols and distributed systems.
- Founder of the Edgenet project to create a completely secure, anonymous global P2P network.
- President of the Association for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) , which fought with patent law.
- CEO of the Wikidot Wiki Project.
- He was an open standards activist and founder of the Digital Standards Organization .
- In 2007, Peter was named one of the 50 most influential people in the field of “Intellectual Property”.
Much detail here: Thirty five years I, as a necromancer, inhaled life in dead iron with the help code
It's time for my last article. I could write more, there is time, but then I will think about other things: how comfortable it is to sit in bed, when to take painkillers, and about people around me.
... I want to write one last model, the last protocol, which is dedicated to how to die, having some knowledge and time in store. This time I will not format the RFC. :)
Death report
Peter Hinchens website
Wikipedia article
Thoughts and ideas of Peter Hinchens on Habré:
- Death report
- Optimistic Merging: First people, then code. Build the right community and it will write the correct code
- Social architecture: stratagem for success of open source projects
- How to capture / protect an open-source project
- How to build a community. Translation of the book "Social Architecture": Chapter 1. Toolkit
About the book translation project
I, with the support of Filtech-accelerator , plan to publish on Habré (and, perhaps, in paper) the translation of the book “Social Architecture” . IMHO, this is the best (if not the only adequate) manual for managing / building / improving communities focused on product creation (and not on mutual grooming or “worship” to the leader, sports club, etc.).
Accepting applications in the accelerator
If you have projects / startups with a high share of technologies that match the values of Filtech , feel free to submit an application .
Until February 25, there is still time!
Chat in Telegram
A community of people developing PhilTech projects or simply interested in the topic of technologies for the social sector.
#philtech news
News about projects in ideology #philtech and links to useful materials.
Facebook Page
News of Philtech startups, Russian and international events from the world of technology for philanthropy.
Subscribe to the newsletter
Weekly newsletter from the world of technology and philanthropy.
Accepting applications to the accelerator for filtech startups continues
If you have projects / startups with a high share of technologies that match the values of Filtech , feel free to submit an application .
Until February 25, there is still time!
Chat in Telegram
A community of people developing PhilTech projects or simply interested in the topic of technologies for the social sector.
#philtech news
News about projects in ideology #philtech and links to useful materials.
Facebook Page
News of Philtech startups, Russian and international events from the world of technology for philanthropy.
Subscribe to the newsletter
Weekly newsletter from the world of technology and philanthropy.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/348716/
All Articles