We’re getting ready to wind down on our first week in Agile-mode. Hmm. It was really interesting working this way and I am definitely tired as all heck (averaging 5 hours sleep a night - generally succumbing with my laptop on my chest).

Duane and I are both positive about the work we got done, but we’ve definitely highlighted some refinements we need to make in the process. We’ve certainly moved the system forward from the outside, however, being the perfectionists we are, we also want to move the backend at the same time.

One interesting observation from our call this morning - refactoring happens in later passes not the first. It’s a hard thing to get used to when we’ve taken a pathway that has stayed the course of fortitude when we’ve shifted to building snowmen on a sunny day.

We skipped our day for documentation and refinement this week. Why? We have a new little project we plan to release very soon (like within two weeks) and we needed to put some time into it. As a small (aka 2-person) shop, it’s hard often to have the time to do things right all the time. This little project is definitely but so we’ll be sharing the excitement very soon - we promise.

I’ve been working quite a bit on a variety of interface modules this week already and they’re coming along quite nice (in Firefox). You see, the problem is that, IMNSHO, Safari and IE are equally useless :)

Truth be told, I’m sooo tired of going round in circles testing one thing here, testing another thing there, and then going back and fixing what just got broken. It’s like sleeping on an ice cold night with a blanket that’s just too small to cover you up all the way. Tug it a little in one direction, your toes are frozen. Tug it in the other direction and your nose is getting frostbitten.

Today I had another one of those wonderful episodes where I was indeed tugging. The culprit - the label tag. I have been working on a widget for our tagging needs in the system (see screenshot) and I had it working great in Firefox but no dice in IE and Safari. Why? Look at this code:


<label class="check" onclick="toggleCheck(this)"><input type="checkbox" /></label>


Looks simple enough. Now, note that the <input> is inside the label which should rightly NOT require that I specify who it’s for. Works fine in Firefox. So I then made my effort to complete the regular setup for the <label>:


<label class="check" onclick="toggleCheck(this)" for="id"><input type="checkbox" id="id" /></label>


So, with this, I had IE working and not the Firefox. Why? Well IE will let you put an onclick on pretty much anything. So this was working just fine. Problem was that Firefox won’t honor a click on a label since it forwards the click on to the input that it’s targeting (seems reasonable). So here comes one of the stupidest hacks I can think of:


<label class="check" onclick="toggleCheck(this)" for="id"><input type="checkbox" id="id" onclick="toggleCheck(this.parentNode)" /></label>


Yup. I’m calling the function in BOTH places. Why? Well, the problem with IE is that if the checkbox is hidden, it won’t accept the forwarded click. So, in IE, the onclick on the <label> is doing the work and in Firefox the one on the <input> is doing the work. I don’t know which case is true for Safari.

Moral of the story. Don’t let anyone tell you doing things the right way is ever easy ;) All the more reason to sympathize with us hard-working entrepreneurs that have limited resources and are trying to build things that work well for everyone.

There’s been quite a bit of talk in the past year about all the “beta” applications that are launched on the web. Beta’s become the “in” thing in terms of releasing software online (and now is quickly becoming passe to many folks).

I’ll share my opinion in a second, but first to the source of my inspiration. The more recent round of criticisms are calling upon the plethora of Web 2.0 startups that are announcing their systems in a seemingly robotic fashion. Michael Arrington (TechCrunch) has done a nice write-up on some of the end-user grievances with beta software. I definitely recommend you read it. One passage that really resonated with me was this one:

This is a bad idea. You will be crucified for wasting people’s time and they will leave brutal comments slamming your product. It is far better to delay launch, or remove the feature entirely, than show stuff that doesn’t work.

This is a “fall on your sword” issue. If the team is pressing to do this, spend political capital in fighting it. Your equity will be worth more because of it.

Pre-launch labels do not protect you from scorn.

Source: TechCrunch, “Don’t Blow Your Beta”

In general, I’ve always been on to sell only tangible things. I really don’t like talking or, gasp, selling vapor. As Mike notes, however, sometimes waiting until things are all set and done can be a detriment to you. And, of course, selling too much too early is equally (if not more) problematic.

An expression I’ve heard that seems quite relevant to this situation is “All the sizzle, but no steak”. This is the situation that I think many Web 2.0 companies are placing themselves in. We’re all very excited about what we’re building and what it will ultimately be able to do, however, we’re out selling the steak and we don’t even have the cow.

This really seems to compound when you’re able to release just a sliver of something. I’ve often noted that life is easy, breezy until you have your first user - forget if they’re paying or not. A whole new world opens up and many, many conveniences fly out the window.

With syncPEOPLE, we’ve taken a decidedly different approach. Aside from announcing out mere existence (we waited 6 months to do that), we’ve been relatively quiet about exactly what we’re building. While we could have chosen to do a more open beta process, we’ve opted to select a few key clients to work with and are doing our best to please the heck out of them. Naturally, we’ll be happy to take the wraps off soon for everyone to share, but I’m happy to wait. Even our timeline has changed as we’ve had to address client needs - not that we’re complaining (we know we’re building something that lots of others will use), but if we had promised something larger to the world, we’d be letting lots of people down now.

I’ll wrap up with my philosophy on Texas Hold Em. Don’t call the bet unless you’re prepared to accept a raise.

As an entrepreneur, we’re challenged by a ceasless number of pessimists, as I call them. These pessimists are the people and forces that seem to torture our very existence as business folk trying to change the world. It’s sad to say, but there’s generally far more working against you than for you - but then again, what fun would it be if it was easy?

Last week, I came across the blog (Let The Good Times Roll) of someone I really admire, Guy Kawasaki. I’ve written about it here a few times in the past and definitely have to recommend his new blog since it’s proven to be both educational and highly entertaining.

Guy’s got two really interesting pieces up that are making the rounds:

• The Top Ten Lies of Entrepreneurs
• The Top Ten Lies of Venture Capitalists

I won’t bother to add to these lists - I think they’re well written and make their point. I guess I am actually interested, at least to some degree, in the role these lies play in our survival. I’d be willing to bet that, despite these lies, they serve as a small reserve of fuel for us when we’re plowing through endless nights. Maybe it’s a little lie, maybe we’re a little delusional but I’ve met very few entrepreneurs who aren’t.

Now, I’m not saying we should lie to ourselves on purpose - we shouldn’t. We should be as honest as possible with what we’re doing at all times. However, what seems to be masked here is passion at its best. We allow our passion to wash the truth in many ways and that changes our worldview on lots of things. Sure, I’m guilty of it and I’ll be damned if it doesn’t make me work the slightest bit better.

Running a business is like steering a ship. Every day we encounter waves and icebergs. It’s easy enough to ignore the manage either when you’re looking, impossible if you’re not. Just remember, ships don’t run on salt water.

It’s been a rough week to say the least (what with New Years generating a weird Monday and then me forgetting Thursday) but more importantly, there’s been quite a bit of pressure on us (both internal and external) to move many of the pieces forward in a meaningul way.

Certainly, we’re up for the challenge and we’re not turning back - but we are adjusting our sights a bit. The underlying platform we’ve been building is difficult, to say the least, because it is so abstract in nature. While this will ultimately be the road that we have to pave, it doesn’t do much for getting people excited.

So, starting Monday, we’re adjusting our approach. Duane and I are quite capable of working very quickly on things - it just turns out that we keep tripping over our own ideas about how to abstract the system. So, we’re not going to abstract it anymore. Well, actually we are but at the end of the week. We have 4 major objectives we’re pursuing that all will lead to the launch of our first two offerings (I’d tell you but I would have to kill you). On the last day of the week, we’ll be accounting for feedback from the week, examining the code, refactoring and abstracting as we go along.

We’ll see how it works out in the end, but if the level of excitement we both have for going in this direction is any indicator, I can’t imagine it failing. Indeed, programming and development is creates a palette that quickly tires of the same thing over and over. We’re changing our meal daily - but they all put food in our stomachs.

P.S. There should definitely be a rule against accordion players playing in Starbucks!

Today was a really strange day. I think I’ve been sleeping too little or something lately, not sure what it is. I went through the ENTIRE day thinking it was Thursday. That’s right. I read the newspaper, made phone calls (that I was supposed to make on Friday), and wrapped up the whole work week.

How do you like that? And yet? I’m still here toiling away.

One of the most difficult things about shopping around for new people to work with new providers is that there’s often a backlash that, well, really sucks.

Recently, we’ve been looking into hiring some new people, mostly on the design side of things. I’ve talked with quite a few really great people and been impressed with their work. Some of these discussions have even involved quite a bit of time discussing the needs of the project and the vision that we have.

Ultimately, these things end up ugly as you tend to fall in love with everyone you’re making extended contact with. At the end of the day, you have to choose one over the other and it’s never nice when it happens. The time invested may have been trivial or extensive, but the numerous factors that guide your decisions are never completely obvious to all parties (be it price, style, professionalism, etc).

I have had two of these collisions today and I’m not happy that they had to happen, however, they made the most sense for our organization. Though I try my best to not take up too much time from others before its required, sometimes, they offer it, sometimes its mandated to understand what is being bought and sold.

The big question, of course, is who pays for this. One of the parties actually indicated a bit sorely, which I completely understand mind you, that I should offer to pay for the time they spent preparing a comp for us in good faith (a comp we didn’t solicit and that was not comprised of original work). I’m not sure what good faith means in this context.

When I was a consultant, I lost lots of money on both ends of the snake. Up front, I would often spend loads of time preparing proposals, on phone calls, making revisions. I never got paid - I did it in hopes of winning a client. On the other end, I have had many, many instances where I lost loads of money from clients disappearing, delaying, or outright denying responsibility. Once again, those were the costs of doing business and there was not much action I could take in one way or the other.

In the end, there’s a certain ethical question here. I’m just not sure sometimes when some “calls ethics” is it really that or are these just the natural hazards of being in business? I’m not happy either way - and if I didn’t care I wouldn’t be writing this or be worried about the mistakes I might have made in the process.

Happy New Year everyone! I’ve been back for a while now actually but have been beyond busy and only now making sure I send out my best wishes to you all.

This year really stands to be a memorable one, on so many fronts. I think we’re at the beginning (and possibly end) of a bubblet that was forming. I think the net result will be something much more than the money put in and not taken out. It’s the changing of our lenses to something more suitable for our own needs.

I came across a post on Seth Godin’s blog that really seems to set the tone for this year, at least from my eyes:

Sometimes I use this as an example when I’m at client sites. I tell them the moral of the story, too: “If you can’t change the little things in your methods, you’ll never change the big things. Pick something, make it better. Don’t worry if it is just a little thing. If you lather, rinse, and repeat that a few times, you will have made a big difference. BUT if you wait for everyone else to change BEFORE you will, remember that everyone else is thinking the same thing, and so nobody will change anything. Don’t wait for permission, or worry about doing something different, or invent reasons why you don’t have authority. Somebody has to make the first move. It might as well be you. Change your world, today.”

If you aren’t doing anything different, how can you expect to accomplish anything different?

Source: Scott Hampton, “unNotified Bodies - Stubborn Resistance to Change.”

Print that out. Put it on your wall. Stick it in your wallet.

With the formation of this seemingly new bubblet surrounding Web 2.0, there’s been a continuous discussion going on as related to why companies should be formed. I’ve seen arguments on both sides of the fence, from those that fully endorse building a company that’s designed for consumption to those that believe a company should be built only to generate revenue.

Call me old fashioned, but I tend to agree. When I decided to start syncPEOPLE six months ago, I had no intention of simply “flipping it”, though I certainly would be interested in knowing who would like us :) I’m a serial entrepreneur, been doing it straight for the last 13 years. In the beginning, I was more interested in the lifestyle aspects - you know, supporting myself, not working for anyone else, that kind of thing.

As of late, I’ve really wanted to grow something big. I’m asked often why we didn’t name our company syncEVENTS (we own it but choose not to use it for now). For me, the answer is really quite simple. In the long term view, we’re not just about events. In the near and short term, however, I think that the event industry gives us the most opportunities to do what we’re passionate about.. connecting people to each other and strengthening the ties that hold us together. We see hundreds, if not thousands, of additional uses of our technology and expertise, but we don’t indulge them at the time. It just doesn’t make sense to worry about everything when something is right in front of you.

Looking at the space we’re in specifically, it’s really amusing to me that we’re trying to pioneer in this direction. In many respects, it’s really not glamorous at all. We don’t get to work with the Technorati crowd. We deal with industries across the board from science and technology to trades and supplies. Of course, that’s only one side of the story. On the other side, it’s a tremendously fertile industry that contributes billions of dollars to our own economy. It’s an industry that’s responsible for bringing millions of individuals together to learn and share ideas. What’s not to love about that?

Best of all, we’ve never considered AdSense as part of our revenue model.

As my older brother recently told me on the phone, “Take it easy. You’ve put in the hard work and it will happen.” Yup. Work hard to create value for everyone inside and outside of your organization - how can that be a failure?

I’m please to send some love out to Peter Caputa who’s now doing some side work with the Root.net folks. As he recently announced, he’s been added to the team as a contract employee to handle some of the blogging responsibilities for the main company blog. As a starving entrepreneur, I’m happy and can certainly relate. Pete’s an ideal person to do this, his summary explains it all:

They intend to use blogs and a lot of other creative ways to engage their community. And engaging their community will be quintessential to making this all work. Without consumers as an active participant in heralding their own rights to own their own attention, this won’t work. So, my goal is to help foster that community. And in doing so, change the way advertisers, publishers, middlemen and investors (that’s new) interact with us individuals, who just so happen to consume stuff.

pc4media, “Me: Root.net Corporate Blogger”

I’ve been especially interested in this Third Voice model as it’s an integral part of our offering at syncPEOPLE. I alluded to some of these issues in “Fear of Commitment & Comments“. One thing I have spent quite a bit of time on lately is connecting bloggers to our clients. I like to call this the Third Voice since it’s really a voice from outside the organization. This is worrisome to many, for just that reason, but on the flip side they see the value in a new perspective, especially one that’s driven by passion (did I mention our company’s tagline; Connecting People, Passions and Pursuits).

What resonated with me about Pete’s new role is his acknowledgement of passion from both parties. He wasn’t hired just for writing skills or because he has loads of free time on his hands - he loves what they’re doing and they see the value in that. I’m not alone in this line of thinking. As usual, if you know where to look, or more importantly, how to look, you’ll find someone talking about what your thinking. For me, that voice came from Pat McCarthy’s comments on Pete’s new job:

This is interesting because there are many employees at Root.net who have their own blogs already, so it’s not like they don’t feel they could handle it on their own. They are specifically choosing an outside party.

What kind of effect will this have? Will the blog be more or less insightful because of it? It should definitely feel different from a normal corporate blog, but will people who become blog readers later on understand that the writer is not an actual employee of the company?

Source: Conversion Rater, “Hiring an Outside Blogger For Your Corporate Blog”

In response, I think the outcome can be quite positive. Naturally, a good selection process needs to be used in choosing the right blogger - it’s a lot like dating in many ways. In the end, blending viewpoints and capturing the conversation really do lend themselves to interesting experiences.