On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM, silky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Andrew Barnett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> So just because they don't explode into something great by the end of the >> weekend that they were started on, doesn't mean you should discredit them, >> and say that developing the site/program was a waste of time, because there >> are people out there who are probably looking for something just like that >> to use for themselves. > > You seem to be a bit confused; Elias said that the goal was > specifically to _not_ be successful. That's what I have a problem > with. Why *try* and fail? If the idea doesn't work based on merit, > then fine, whatever, but at least *try*.
I personally prefer to work on projects that have at least a slight chance of success and future profit. I like to believe that failure is not an option. For me that's an incredible motivator. I think that applies to a lot of people and that it is human nature. That's why we should exploit it. I'm not saying it's a good or bad habit, I'm just saying it's frequent and powerful and we should exploit it. What I got out of startupcamp was a lot of new lessons about what it takes to start a company. If we can make the game even more realistic by adding in complex equity structures and an even stronger emphasis on a realistic buisness plan, I'm all for it. Call it "level 2" if you like. I also think startupcamp can be an interesting place for financial institutions to train their juniors how to make quick decisions with ridiculously little information. That's why I think there is a potential for stipends; it's a lot cheaper than sending your juniors to a 6 star hotel in Taiwan for a training course. Getting more money into startupcamp is important, because it will be taken more seriously. I think Bart told me something along these lines as well. I agree with Silky that throwing random people into a group and giving them equal ownership presents a risk to those involved. Usually you start a company with group of people you know well and trust, not complete strangers. I understand why he would not participate in the camp itself for that reason. But I actually see it as an opportunity. Working with strangers gives you access to a much wider sphere of ideas (not to mention contacts) than you could get from your circle of trust. As long as there is a safe and fair exit for everyone involved. This is what *I* would call Enterprise 2.0 and it goes beyond startupcamp. Sjors --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
