9 ms·
I think it's too "out-of-the-box" for most companies, it might fit better with non-profits which are largely driven by volunteers or startups though as their ex
by ig1 16y ago
I think it's too "out-of-the-box" for most companies, it might fit better with non-profits which are largely driven by volunteers or startups though as their existing working model is closer to the BetterMeans model (i.e. people pick which projects to work on, etc.)
But I think there needs to be some level of hierarchical control rather than a complete free-for-all though, as things like budgets, etc. have to be managed (disclaimer: I told the Wikipedia founders the same thing when they started. I may have been a tiny bit wrong in that case ;-)
The product looks very slick though !
- adelegb 16y agoI totally agree that it is more suited to non-profits and other social enterprise. Those are certainly the folks we are directing our message to. However I do think it has wider applicability for any team that is interested in working together in a more decentralized way. In terms of the heirarchy, it is not a total open free for all. While anyone can vote and comment on open projects, only the votes of the members are binding. Therefore we create a forum for all voices to be heard, while still allowing the devoted team members to drive the work in the right direction for the team.