Simplify the pledge

[chadwhitacre]

This changes the pledge from:

maximize operational transparency and openness as a defining element in how we create value

to:

create value through openness

The purpose of this change is to boil our message down to the essentials, shedding some jargon in the process. With this change we can focus our efforts around defining "openness." I envision a pattern library inspired by the Responsive Patterns site. This would replace the blog, as I believe we've discussed in the past.

[galuszkak]

@whit537 with that change we should synchronize also pledges in other languages.

[waldyrious]

I am not sure this simplified version conveys the vision well. The problem (and the very reason for an initiative like opencompany.org to exist) is that openness and transparency are often seen as almost opposite from creating value (which, in the context of a commercial company, is usually connected to making profit). For example, there is still a quite prevalent notion that open-sourced products can't be monetized (or that they only can be so through great effort, compared to closed-source ones).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, rather than "create value through openness", which kinda sidesteps the whole issue this initiative is trying to tackle, the simplified pledge could more accurately describe the vision by saying something like "create value despite openness", or something like that -- but of course, this isn't sexy at all. My hope is that a nicer way of putting that, that doesn't sacrifice the clarity of the mission, can be found in this discussion.

Of course, I could be completely misinterpreting the vision, in which case I'm happy to stand corrected.

[chadwhitacre]

@waldyrious That does get to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? Does openness create value or not? Is it something we do to increase the value we create, or is it a drag on value creation but we do it anyway for other reasons?

[chadwhitacre]

I suppose that gets us into the question of what exactly we mean by openness.

[galuszkak]

I see that we are going with this discussion to defining "value" because this will be different for every possible use case. For someone will be profit by money, for others happy customer, for last consumer that is aware how your product/services are working.

@whit537 this question about openness goes not to exact nature of openess because this goes different in every use case. What I'm sure is that this should go as question about how openness is creating value.

[waldyrious]

I suppose that gets us into the question of what exactly we mean by openness.

Definitely. And not only that, but we should also make sure the pledge is formulated in such a way that its correct interpretation doesn't depend on a particular conception of openness that is too specific to the project, or detached from the common view as to render the pledge meaningless (in the sense we care about, at least).

[waldyrious]

(In other words: we might want to avoid the same issue with the expression "free software", where one has to append "-- free as in free speech" because the common interpretation of "free" is not what matters to those who use the term "free software".)

[chadwhitacre]

Properly speaking, money is a reflection of value, a measure of value. Creating value is the raison d'être of business. Insofar as money does not adequately map to real value, does not perfectly measure value, then that's a market inefficiency: the one that open companies intend to capitalize on. Our premise is that open companies will be more successful than non-open companies, because they do a better job of creating real value.

That said, it's a good point that we don't want to over-define "openness." I see us wanting to take a Wittgensteinian "family resemblance" approach to defining openness. "Here are some things openness looks like." That's the function of the pattern library, as I see it.

I think we should go with "Creating value through openness" and then use the pattern library to show what we mean by "openness."

[waldyrious]

Our premise is that open companies will be more successful than non-open companies, because they do a better job of creating real value.

I agree with that, but then maybe something that better transmits the idea of "create value because of openness"? (Again, a literal, assuredly unsexy formulation, just to get the idea across in this discussion.) I say that because "through" seems to define a rather bland relationship IMO, although it might be just me. Another option: "exploit openness as a driver of additional value" (sorry, I'm not very good at this, but I hope I am getting my point across).

[galuszkak]

"exploit openness as a driver of additional value"

I don't agree that this is additional value. I think it's center value on which companies run their business.

[kyzh]

I agree with @waldyrious on the "because".
It says loud and clear "The consequence of openness is creation of value"
As a non native speaker it works better.

I like transparency, its a concrete example of the concept of "being open".
Maybe we need to find other manifestation of "being open".
Once we have those terms, we will have less trouble with the rest.

In addition to "transparency" I think an open company is "inclusive".
By that I mean having the least amount of barrier to overcome to be part of an open company.
I see "inclusive" as both on the technical side (think open source) and the cultural side (think everyone no matter their background, race, religion, gender, and so on).

If we find all the possible ways a company can be open, we will be able to agree on what we try to achieve by defining an "open company"

[chadwhitacre]

Yes to both transparency and inclusivity. I would see both of those as patterns in the pattern library, fleshing out different aspects of what we mean by "openness."

[timothyfcook]

I like the new pledge. +1

[chadwhitacre]

I say that because "through" seems to define a rather bland relationship

Hmm ...

I agree with @waldyrious on the "because".
It says loud and clear "The consequence of openness is creation of value"
As a non native speaker it works better.

I don't think "create value because of openness" works in English. It has more of the sense of "openness is our motivation for creating value" than "openness is a way in which we create value." I think we want something closer to the latter. In English "create value through openness" I think hits the right note. It's simple, it's concrete, it's open to interpretation and exploration, but gives us "rails" as it were. Can we solve this in the translations?

[galuszkak]

IMO this sounds great:

"openness is our motivation for creating value"

[chadwhitacre]

"openness is our motivation for creating value"

This makes it sound to me like openness is an end in itself. Is this what you're going for? What does openness mean to you?

[timothyfcook]

that makes it sound like openness is the only motivation for creating value, which isn’t quite true.

On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Chad Whitacre [email protected] wrote:

"openness is our motivation for creating value"

This makes it sound to me like openness is an end in itself. Is this what you're going for? What does openness mean to you?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[waldyrious]

I don't think "create value because of openness" works in English.

Neither do I, and that's why I clarified immediately afterwards that that language was for illustration purposes only.

What I meant with "bland" is the difference between saying "openness is a way in which we create value" versus "create value through openness" -- the latter seems somehow weaker, almost buzzword-y. But you're right that it sets the path for a reasonable default interpretation which can be reinforced with the patterns library. I just wish that the pledge itself transmitted this more strongly (though I am not sure how to express it nicely in English).

[chadwhitacre]

What about "create value by being open"?

[galuszkak]

@whit537 @timothyfcook I don't say that first one excludes second one. Just the first one is making it more true for second in people eyes (that "openess is a way in which we create value.").

[chadwhitacre]

Or "we use openness to create value"?

[galuszkak]

we use openness to create value

👍

[kyzh]

It is close to the free software/open source debate.
"Is it the goal or a way to achive something ?"

I like "because", yet i'm not married to it.
I understand you like "the way" more than "the goal".
I also agree to the fact that openness for the sake of openness is wrong, and will not lead somewhere concrete.

We can translate it for sure.

[chadwhitacre]

we use openness to create value

This could be easily interpreted as "open-washing." Namely, "we're only open to the extent we have to be in order to extract profit from you." We're already going to fight against that idea. Do we shoot ourselves in the foot with this phrasing?

[kyzh]

+1 for we use openness to create value

[timothyfcook]

+1

On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Florentin Raud [email protected] wrote:

+1 for we use openness to create value

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[chadwhitacre]

This could be easily interpreted as "open-washing."

On the other hand, our audience is other companies like ourselves. We're going to have detractors no matter what. What's the phrasing we want to use for ourselves?

[chadwhitacre]

What's the phrasing that we can come back to to remind us of our principles when we are making decisions?

[kyzh]

I think we are barking at the wrong tree here.
I think lets find the patterns first.
The pledge will come naturally aftrwards

[chadwhitacre]

"radical"

Not seeing "radical." Did you mean "operational"?

[kyzh]

Yes sorry

[chadwhitacre]

Blech. Are we deploying from branches besides master? Because I'm seeing verbiage from this PR here:

Or did I screw something up with this PR?

[chadwhitacre]

Yeah, I'm seeing auto-commits on:

https://github.com/opencompany/opencompany.github.io/commits/master

I've ticketed fixing deployment as #136.

[kyzh]

I assumed master only.
I'm on mobile I cannot do much now

[chadwhitacre]

I'm going to hold off on further modifying this PR until we resolve #136.

[galuszkak]

#136 is resolved.
@whit537 can you modify this PR?

[chadwhitacre]

I've rebased on master. Did it publish!? ... No! :-)

[chadwhitacre]

Can we just remove "maximise" "[operational]" and "transparency" from the pledge?

Per the above, I've modified this PR to change from:

Maximizing trust through genuine corporate transparency and openness
[...] committed to maximizing operational transparency and openness as a defining element in how we create value.
[...] pledge to maximize operational transparency and openness as a defining element in how we create value.

To:

Companies committed to openness as a defining element in how we create value
[...] committed to openness as a defining element in how we create value.
[...] commit to openness as a defining element in how we create value.

How's it look now? Any vetoes?

[waldyrious]

I like it. That way "committed to openness" is clearly the core of the pledge, and the "create value" part assumes a less prominent role, which feels more appropriate in this kind of statement.

[chadwhitacre]

@waldyrious Cool. I agree.

@galuszkak Waddya say? Ready to merge? :-)

[kyzh]

i think you are spot on.

[chadwhitacre]

@kyzh @galuszkak How about adding French and Polish translations to this PR?

[galuszkak]

I think we should do this in seperate PR. For now I think we can merge as it is.

[chadwhitacre]

@galuszkak Okay, someone want to merge this, then? I shouldn't merge my own PR. :-)

[galuszkak]

Done.

[chadwhitacre]

Huzzah! 💃

[galuszkak]

!m @whit537

[chadwhitacre]

Translation reticketed as #138.