An angel investor is by nature too small and idiosyncratic a group to
guarantee good results--isn't this the "benevolent dictator" argument
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator>? If they happen to
be both well-meaning and right good things can happen. But there's a
much better chance that at least one of those two conditions won't
exist, or at least won't exist for long.
---
Raj
On Jun 22, 2007, at 11:09 PM, Dave Patton wrote:
Blammo wrote:
I'm not sure what to do about the monetary aspects of the
Standards participation.
What is needed is the equivalent of an "angel investor":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_investors
By that what I mean is a corporate entity that will
step forward and setup a model where money that would
otherwise be spent on memberships in standards bodies, etc.,
is put into a business model whereby the money funds
things like infrastructure, grants to individuals or
companies to provide resources to work on reference
implementations of standards, legal fees to make sure
that nobody can monopolize the results of the process,
etc. Such corporate entities have to be forward thinking,
and can gain competitive advantages in terms of good will,
being involved with a wide spectrum of development and
intellectual talent, and maybe even attracting some
'anti-establishment types' to work for 'their team' ;-)
--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
Personal website - Maps, GPS, etc.
http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
