This is my first blog entry ever, so here is the ubiquitous one liner that tries to sum up my feelings or intentions:

I didn’t grow up on the Internet, but I’ll grow up here.

This first blog entry I am exploring why I spent more than a year developing the ideas of the Document Project (dp) before discussing the concept with the web community, before talking to possible end users, or talking to potential investors, even though these things are very important to creating successful websites.

What is the point of asking?  We have recently been approached by a US State Senator that is interested in evaluating the dp to see if it is a useful tool to connect with the senator’s constituency.  This made us realize that our first market could be constituent services offices at all levels of the US government.  Constituent services is a good market since they could benefit from a new technology that allows the collective voice of a constituency to be expressed in document form, similar to the bills and resolutions that are debated in government, and similar to petitions that are written to a representative.  It may be advantageous for first adopters at all scales (town, state, country) to advertise in campaigning that they are using such a tool, and the size of the groups using the tool can naturally scale with the development of the technology. 

Here is another reason that constituent services is a good initial market: we have no good ideas for another one.  Just saying “it will develop from high school students petitioning their school, to community organizations creating documents they will follow, to petition writers garnering support in the community, then move to large systems like the people of Egypt creating a new constitution”, although a dream scenario, it is too vague.   (Unions were another good idea, but constituent services seemed ideal, especially with initial interest from a state senator.)

So here (finally) is the dilemma:  We have a concept that captured the interest of a US representative: Create a way to allow large groups of people to collectively voice a position on a specific topic.  Although we haven’t talked to him yet, it is almost a sure bet that although he likes the idea, he does not care about how I think we should go about doing it, even if I have been thinking about it for a while.

This scenario cries out for the following to occur: scrap my current ideas of how to implement the system, talk to the end users, and build a tool motivated by user testing.  There is a clear path to do this: talk to the representative, see what types of topics he would like to use the tool with.  How many people would be using it?  Will the topics be divisive, and how much so?  How would he like to receive the final result of the collaboration?  Would he want a moderator, or have the creation process have no leader?  And so on.  Then, using a test group,  study the use of current systems such as Google Docs or wikis to see where these tools break when hundreds or thousands or more begin contributing.  Then, finally, build new functionality into a new system with this knowledge.  This, I have been told, is a standard way to build a website.

The alternative is to show him a preliminary website that offers the ideas and the methods that I have already come up with, even though they are not tested and there has been no feedback on whether they are good or not. 

Putting emphasis on the first option may be more useful when creating a website that needs to be economically successful to survive and evolve.  But I have a feeling that this method puts limits on how large or difficult of a problem can be solved, since the idea immediately faces the constraints of conventional wisdom and reality.  In this case, I clearly see a benefit of developing the concepts of the site up to a certain point before this happens.  

Trying to solve big and difficult problems is… well… very big and difficult.  Big problems usually don’t fit in the standard economic or usage models of websites.  Websites that try to solve big problems reach very far, then need time to evolve with lots of support from like-minded people before they even have a chance of working.  And even then, there is a very high probability of failure, due to the regular failure modes of new things, but also because the original codifications of the problem and solutions are usually way off base, since we aren’t smart enough to do any better.  On the other hand, there is a chance to do something really great, so who cares about all the difficulties?

A second reason is that life is too special to follow a ruleset about how to create great things, and how to love.  I follow people and ideas that have gone before me just enough so that I am not stepping on too many toes, and that people I care about like having me around more often then naught.  It’s really scary sometimes, but it is the only way I feel I can challenge the world to have more quality in the minds and hearts of all of its beholders.

So here is where we are. I have thought about a problem: What is the best tool available, within current limitations of technology and communication, to allow an unlimited number of people with disparate ideas and backgrounds to coherently and sensibly interact with one another when the need arises?  I’ve investigated the issues involved with the problem, understand how the problem is currently dealt with in our society, codified the challenges to making a better system, and created a least resistance path to overcome these challenges.  It’s not perfect, but it is something.  Now I want to build it, show it to everyone around me (including Senators), and then get lots and lots of help.

I’ve only taken a few sips of my coffee.