Paul Jacobson

This is a cross-post from an article I wrote for iCommons.org.

The Social Web (aka Web 2.0) is about three things: listening, conversing and sharing. Of the three, sharing is perhaps the most relevant in the context of the Commons in part because it is about sharing content, something that is almost taken for granted these days. Anyone who is active on the Social Web is familiar with a myriad content sharing sites ranging from Flickr (photo sharing) to Vimeo and YouTube (video sharing) to docstoc (document sharing). Everywhere we look we see examples of people sharing their and other people’s content and we almost take it as a given that we can take from one site and share it on our own or that other people can do likewise with our own content.

To a large extent this issue is already being addressed by a few services that enable users to licence their content under a free content license such as Creative Commons. An increasing number of blogs are also licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses even if the bloggers concerned still assert “all rights reserved” (which only confuses matters). Basically what happens is that these bloggers have a Creative Commons badge which grants certain rights and then also state that all their rights are reserved instead of the more appropriate “some rights reserved” statement. That being said, there does seem to be a greater awareness of alternative content licensing options although there is still a degree of uncertainty as to precisely what an open content licence is and how it all works. An important missing step is establishing a link in people’s minds between fulfilling their desire to share their content and the most appropriate legal mechanism to achieve this. In other words, educating users of the Social Web how to licence their content in a way that fits with their intentions. Instances where content creators apply unsuitable licenses to their content tend to undermine the public perception of those licenses and devalue the work done by organisations like iCommons to promote more flexible content licensing options.

The emergence of lifestreams and microblogging has brought a number of interesting challenges when it comes to sharing content either in short form (in the case of so-called microblogs like Twitter) or where content is aggregated from multiple sources (in the case of lifestreaming services). As many people know, Twitter is a short form microblogging service that is intended to answer the question “What are you doing?” in 140 characters or less. It has evolved into a massive, unstructured chat service and blogging platform and yet there is no apparent effort to give users the option of licensing their content using an alternative licensing model to default copyright. It may seem like a trivial issue when you take into account that posts on Twitter are 140 characters or less but there are some Twitter users who post some pretty compelling content despite those constraints and given the sheer volume of “tweets” over a period of time, that can comprise a fairly substantial body of content. In this context it isn’t difficult to see value in being able to licence a Twitter stream under a free content licence, bearing in mind that tweets have fixed web addresses and can be easily referenced.

Lifestreams beg a similar question. A good example of a lifestream service is FriendFeed which has risen to prominence recently. There are a number of other examples and these include Jaiku, Plaxo Pulse and Social Thing!. These services enable you to insert content streams from the likes of Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and a host of other content sharing services or sources you may use and then aggregate those streams into a single lifestream which notionally represents your online life as a whole. The same challenges facing Twitter apply here too. The fact that different content streams with different content licenses applied to the content begs the question how the resultant stream should be licensed? For example, my Flickr photos are licensed under a BY-SA 2.0 licence and my blog may be licensed under a BY 3.0 licence. The scenario could become more complicated where the various licenses may not be conducive to some sort of peaceful mashup (for example, one piece of content may have a non commercial element and another could be a simple attribution licence). The challenge then becomes how to licence the aggregated stream especially where content may be available in the stream in degrees of completeness (a Twitter stream on its own may be licensed using one licence and yet when it is reproduced as a whole in a lifestream it may be subject to a very different licence due to the combination of that stream with other content types). As I said, it can be a pretty complicated and convoluted challenge but then sharing on the Social Web isn’t quite as simple as it seems.

One solution is to enable users to carry their specific licenses through from the source of that content (Flickr, Vimeo and the others) through their feeds into their lifestreaming service which would ideally pick up on the applicable license and publicise that license in the resulting lifestream. Of course this would mean that more and more online content sharing sites would need to support Creative Commons and similar free content licenses in the first place but this would resolve the issue of licensing the content and then preserving those licenses down the line.

Technorati Tags:
creative commons, flickr, lifestream, lifestreaming, vimeo, content licensing, free content license, feeds

ITWeb has quoted me in an article titled “Facebook can get you fired” which looks at how your activities on sites like Facebook can create problems for you back at the office. The article also includes quotes from Deshanta, Cerebra’s content manager so be sure to read the article.

I have just been thinking that a similar principle applies if you are the employer or entrepreneur. Your customers are also active on the Web so your online presence could easily impact on your relationships with your customers (and prematurely end new relationships with prospective customers). At the same time, your activities on the social web could serve as a really useful way to build and strengthen relationships.

Technorati Tags:
facebook, work-life balance, getting fired, work, risks

I just read a post on Jason Calacanis’ blog about working at a startup and how families fit into the picture and I posted this comment. When I finished the comment I realised it would make a decent post too, so here it is:

I left a corporate law firm largely because it had a “check your family at the door” policy. I didn’t have a child at the time, he only came along about 2 years later, but even then it was important that I have some down time to unwind.

I think that anyone who wants to be part of a startup has to accept that it won’t be a 9 to 5 job (although 37signals is doing some innovative stuff with their employees: http://tinylink.co.za/d58c8b) and that nutty working hours and habits are often involved. A lawyer I work with and who works 6 days a week, often 16 or more hours a day, once told me that work-life balance is relative. It doesn’t always mean a 9 to 5 job, Monday to Friday. I think the challenge is to find your own kind of balance amidst the chaos of a startup work life.

Although my son is only 4 months old, I can already see how having him makes it so important to focus on work and also make time to spend with him and my wife. Heck, even our 3 puppies need some attention (playing with dogs really helps stress levels too). My solution is to structure my working hours partly around my son’s feeds so I am up at 4am to work, feed him and get back to work. If I am working out and about I try to finish the day’s work by the time I get home so I can focus on my family at the end of the day.

It isn’t easy trying to balance all these considerations but it can be done.

Technorati Tags:
being a dad, family, startup, work-life balance, balance

Well, it has taken long enough for the trend to catch on here too (although I am not sure this is really a first, just the most publicised).  Llewellyn Kriel, a journalist who (previously) worked for the Sowetan (a Johncom/Avusa paper) has been fired because of a blog post he published on Thought Leader about how the Sowetan was no longer hiring staff when the existing staff are overwhelmed by their workload.  The post highlights apparent mismanagement at the paper and deteriorating quality levels, culminating in a crisis for a paper he holds in high regard himself.  He also published an apology for some of the comments he made a couple days later.

That didn’t go down well at all with management and Llewellyn was fired yesterday:

I was found guilty of gross misconduct for bringing the Sowetan’s name into disrepute by criticising it in a blog and for making public confidential company information. That’s how the Sowetan sees it.

Which is a pity because it reinforces the view that it is a sub-standard newspaper. And it certainly is not. Today’s (Friday’s) edition is a massive 72 pages and you don’t get that size of tabloid if you’re a crappy paper. I was very proud to work at the Sowetan and prouder to have called some of the fine people there my colleagues.

This is hardly something new and this particular instance is pretty similar to when former Google employee, Mark Jen, was fired from Google after grousing about his pay a couple years ago.  There is arguably a difference between Llewellyn’s and Mark’s cases because Llewellyn didn’t seem to be revealing any confidential information per se but rather highlighting a growing tragedy at what I understand is one of South Africa’s better papers.

The whole thing is taking shape as a freedom of expression issue although, as Arthur Goldstuck pointed out, Sowetan fired Llewellyn for disclosing confidential information and not for exercising his right to freedom of expression.  It is difficult to really test this from the outside but on a reading Llelwellyn’s initial post, I don’t really see where the confidential information is.  Surely blogging about a growing internal crisis can hardly constitute confidential information, as embarrassing as it is to the paper’s management.  Confidential information is usually the kind of top secret stuff you wouldn’t want your competitors to see for fear of them taking advantage of that to undermine your business.  This includes things like pricing structures, customer lists, contract renewal dates and the secret recipe for Coke (the liquid kind).

Vincent makes a good point in his post on the story (actually, he makes a few good points).  The one point is pretty ironic because a sister paper, The Times, has made a pretty big show of promoting blogging (I am a contributing blogger to The Times) and yet when someone blogs about the internal challenges facing one of the papers in the group on an outside platform (the competitor’s no less – I wonder if the result would have been different if Llewellyn had published the post on a blog of his own?) they are fired on the basis of disclosure of confidential information.  Another irony is that the Sunday Times made a huge deal out of its expose of the health minister a short while ago and how the paper was exercising its right to freedom of expression for the public benefit.  How is this fundamentally different?  We could debate whether talking about internal mismanagement at a large paper is a matter for the public interest but this is still going too far, surely? 

Vincent argues that this is a complex issue and he may be right.  I am tempted to launch into a new tirade about blogging and freedom of expression but I have done that a number of times already.  At the moment this is more like a typical case of an employer who is missing an opportunity to take advantage of an employee’s passion for the paper.  The Sowetan could have used this as another opportunity to really listen to its employees and make important changes to how the paper is run, for the benefit of the paper itself and its readers.  It apparently had a number of opportunities already which it ignored.  Unfortunately people in management often have their own agendas and pride which tends to get in the way of doing the right thing.  It takes a real leader to acknowledge when his/her way is not the best way and to really listen to what the minions think.

Update:
There are a couple more perspectives on this story (and links to perspectives) on the following blogs:

• Matthew Buckland
• Colin Daniels
• Gregor Rohrig

It seems that those in the press who have commented on this story tend to be a lot more cagey about their thoughts on this issue.  I am not sure if this is due to their concern that they could find themselves in a similar position (on both sides of the fence) or not.  Then again, I may be particularly insensitive to these complexities they speak of.  For me the question to ask is whether there really was confidential information disclosed in Llewellyn’s post.

Was this leaked "confidential information" the revelation of an email that was distributed halting new hires?  Was it the statements that people working at the paper had taken pay cuts between 20% and 50% when they became full time staff?  Or perhaps the allegations that the paper is so badly managed and staff so demoralised that they are virtually queuing to walk out the door?

Does extreme embarrassment constitute a basis for confidentiality?  Maybe it is the criticism of the education minister and her department and the concern that people leaving school simply are not equipped to enter the workforce and string a sentence together?  This would certainly be worth talking about if it turned out to be true, especially if there was some political influence coming through there.

Perhaps the focus should be on how the Sowetan chose to fire its employee rather than taking his post as a warning sign to take a good hard look at conditions at the paper and to do something about it.

However you look at it, this is not going to be the last case of its kind.  We are going to see more cases of employees fired for blogging.  What will be interesting to watch will be the trends we see developing.  They will tell us whether this social media mindset some of us have been talking about has taken root or not.

Tags: llewellyn kriel, kriel, llewellyn, sowetan, fired for blogging, fired, blogging, criticism, avusa, johncom, politics, freedom of expression, confidential information, missed opportunities

Leaving aside the damage this poor guy may have done to his career prospects, this is one heck of a farewell letter which was written as this guy left his employment with JPMorgan Chase. When I read this I can identify with the sentiment to a degree and it really sad that some big companies still cultivate this sort of culture Solimine complains about.

Dear Co-Workers and Managers,

As many of you probably know, today is my last day. But before I leave, I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know what a great and distinct pleasure it has been to type “Today is my last day.”

For nearly as long as I’ve worked here, I’ve hoped that I might one day leave this company. And now that this dream has become a reality, please know that I could not have reached this goal without your unending lack of support. Words cannot express my gratitude for the words of gratitude you did not express.

I would especially like to thank all of my managers both past and present but with the exception of the wonderful Saroj Hariprashad: in an age where miscommunication is all too common, you consistently impressed and inspired me with the sheer magnitude of your misinformation, ignorance and intolerance for true talent. It takes a strong man to admit his mistake – it takes a stronger man to attribute his mistake to me.

Over the past seven years, you have taught me more than I could ever ask for and, in most cases, ever did ask for. I have been fortunate enough to work with some absolutely interchangeable supervisors on a wide variety of seemingly identical projects – an invaluable lesson in overcoming daily tedium in overcoming daily tedium in overcoming daily tedium.

Your demands were high and your patience short, but I take great solace knowing that my work, as stated on my annual review, “meets expectation.” That is the type of praise that sends a man home happy after a 10 hour day, smiling his way through half a bottle of meets expectation scotch with a meets expectation cigar. Thanks Trish!

And to most of my peers: even though we barely acknowledged each other within these office walls, I hope that in the future, should we pass on the street, you will regard me the same way as I regard you: sans eye contact.

But to those few souls with whom I’ve actually interacted, here are my personalized notes of farewell:

To Philip Cress, I will not miss hearing you cry over absolutely nothing while laying blame on me and my coworkers. Your racial comments about Joe Cobbinah were truly offensive and I hope that one day you might gain the strength to apologize to him.

To Brenda Ashby whom is long gone, I hope you find a manager that treats you as poorly as you have treated us. I worked harder for you then any manager in my career and I regret every ounce of it. Watching you take credit for my work was truly demoralizing.

To Sylvia Keenan, you should learn how to keep your mouth shut sweet heart. Bad mouthing the innocent is a negative thing, especially when your talking about someone who knows your disgusting secrets. ; )

To Bob Malvin (Mr. Cronyism Jr), well, I wish you had more of a back bone. You threw me to the wolves with that witch Brenda and I learned all too much from it. I still can’t believe that after following your instructions, I ended up getting written up, wow. Thanks for the experience buddy, lesson learned.

Don Merritt (Mr. Cronyism Sr), I’m happy that you were let go in the same manner that you have handed down to my dedicated coworkers. Hearing you on the phone last year brag about how great bonuses were going to be for you fellas in upper management because all of the lay offs made me nearly vomit. I never expected to see management benefit financially from the suffering of scores of people but then again, with this company’s rooted history in the slave trade it only makes sense.

To all of the executives of this company, Jamie Dimon and such. Despite working through countless managers that practiced unethical behavior, racism, sexism, jealousy and cronyism, I have benefited tremendously by working here and I truly thank you for that. There was once a time where hard work was rewarded and acknowledged, it’s a pity that all of our positive output now falls on deaf ears and passes blind eyes. My advice for you is to place yourself closer to the pulse of this company and enjoy the effort and dedication of us “faceless little people” more. There are many great people that are being over worked and mistreated but yet are still loyal not to those who abuse them but to the greater mission of providing excellent customer support. Find them and embrace them as they will help battle the cancerous plague that is ravishing the moral of this company.

So, in parting, if I could pass on any word of advice to the lower salary recipient (”because it’s good for the company”) in India or Tampa who will soon be filling my position, it would be to cherish this experience because a job opportunity like this comes along only once in a lifetime.

Meaning: if I had to work here again in this lifetime, I would sooner kill myself.

To those who I have held a great relationship with, I will miss being your co-worker and will cherish our history together. Please don’t bother responding as at this very moment I am most likely in my car doing 85 with the windows down listening to Biggie.

One!

—————-

Peter A. Solimine
338 East 30th St. #1
New York, NY10016
513.405.0788

(Via Splattermail.)

I came across this post about working at Microsoft the other day.  It is written by Michael Brundage, a software design engineer employed by Microsoft.  I enjoyed the post and while I am not exactly a huge fan of Microsoft, I am developing a reluctant respect for the organisation mainly as a result of Mladen’s insistence that it really isn’t so bad.  This post reinforces that view and like any good pseudo-Cluetrain communication, it reflects the view of a human being who is being honest about his experiences.  The comments on digg.com (from whence I travelled to read the post) are a mixed bag, many are predictably anti-Microsoft and anything that isn’t hostile towards Microsoft.  Brundage deals with the general hostility towards Microsoft at one point in his post:

I’m probably the last person to end up defending Microsoft. I’m writing this on an Apple Powerbook. I’ve publically argued for more diversity in computing environments. But there’s one thing people do that really drives me nuts: anthropomorphization.

I joined Microsoft at the beginning of the antitrust litigation against the company. My NASA coworkers made all sorts of derogatory comments about my choice. I remember one began a conversation with “So you’ve decided to go work for The Great Satan, huh?” A lot of people who ought to know better are convinced Microsoft is evil. Apologies if you’re one of them — because these people are idiots.

Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not “evil” or “good”, and they do not have “intentions.” Star Trek is science fiction — there is no Borg mind. Companies, countries, races, and other groups are made up of individuals like you and me, who make individual decisions that determine the group’s direction. People who speak of companies (or countries, or races, or other groups) as being good or evil are at best ignorant, and at worst bigots.

The reality is that Microsoft is made up of mostly honest, earnest, hardworking people. People with families. People with hardships. People with ordinary and extraordinary lives. People who make wise and foolish decisions. Some employees are bad apples, and some leaders make poor decisions (which their employees may or may not support). Both usually meet with failure. All the Microsoft employees I know are internally driven to “succeed,” where success sometimes means outselling the competition but always means doing your personal best and improving people’s lives with your work.

Although groups don’t have intentions, it’s true that group policies reward some kinds of behavior over others. So perhaps “Microsoft is evil” is shorthand for “Microsoft’s policies are evil.”

The thing is, I haven’t seen any evidence of that on the inside — and I’m usually very critical of these things. For as long as I’ve worked at Microsoft, ethics have been a real part of employee performance reviews. It’s not just talk, but the way work goes each day. Most product designs revolve around addressing specific customer needs. No one ever says “Hey, let’s go ruin company P” or other things that could be construed as “evil.” Instead, it’s “customers Q and R are having trouble with this, and I have an idea how we could fix it…” and other positive, constructive statements.

If anything, Microsoft seems to have the opposite problem, in which employees sometimes design or cut a feature or product without fully appreciating the huge impact their decision can have outside the company. When the media goes wild with knee-jerk reactions for or against something Microsoft did, often the employees responsible for the decision are caught off-guard by the disproportionate public attention.

My advice?  Read the post and see what this guy has to say.  It doesn’t mean you are automatically a Microsoft fan.  It just means you are not stubbornly closed minded.

Technorati Tags: Microsoft, michael brundage

Well, I have finally put up a site for my new law firm that looks pretty decent.  I am actually quite pleased how it turned out.  Take a look for yourself.

For those of you who are interested, I went with a Drupal installation and it proved to be a pretty easy CMS to setup and configure.  I am still a little new at it all but there it is.